ERUVIN 53a-79a

13c

The Soncino Babylonian Talmud

ERUVIN
Book III
Folios 53a-79a
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
WITH NOTES
CHAPTERS V VII

Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5771

www.613etc.com

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Eruvin 53a
OR
BRIDGES,
OR
SEPULCHRAL
MONUMENTS
THAT
CONTAINED
DWELLING CHAMBERS, THE BOUNDARY
OF THE TOWN IS EXTENDED1 TO INCLUDE
THEM.2 SABBATH LIMITS,3 FURTHERMORE,
ARE TO BE SHAPED4 LIKE A SQUARE
TABLET5 IN ORDER THAT THE USE OF THE
CORNERS6 MIGHT BE GAINED.7
GEMARA. Rab and Samuel are at variance.
One learned,8 me'aberin9 and the other
learned, me'aberin.10 He who learned
me'aberin10 explains it as adding a wing,11
and he who learned, me'aberin explains it
in the same sense as that of a pregnant
woman.9
The12 cave of Machpelah.13 Rab and Samuel
differ as to its meaning. One holds that the
cave consisted of two chambers one within
the other; and the other holds that it
consisted of a lower and upper chamber.
According to him who holds that the
chambers were one above the other the term
machpelah13 is well justified but according to
him who holds that it consisted of two
chambers one within the other, what could be
the meaning of machpelah? That it had
multiples14 of couples.15
Mamreh the city of Arba.16 R. Isaac
explained: The city of the four17 couples:15
Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac
and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah.
And it came to pass in the days of
Amraphel.18 Rab and Samuel are at variance.
One holds that his name was Nimrod;19 and
why was he called Amraphel? Because he
ordered our father Abraham to be cast20 into
a burning furnace.21 But the other holds that
his name was Amraphel; and why was he
called Nimrod? Because in his reign he led all
the world in rebellion22 against himself.23
Now there arose a new king over Egypt.24
Rab and Samuel differ. One explains:
Actually a new king, and the other explains:

He25 issued new decrees.26 He who explained:

actually a new king, did so because it is
written new,27 while he who explained: he
issued new decrees, did so because it was not
stated: And the former king died and a new
king reigned. But, according to him who
explained: He issued new decrees, may it
not be objected that it was written: Who
knew not Joseph?28 What is the meaning
of Who knew not Joseph? Who29 appeared
as if he never knew Joseph.
(Mnemonic:30 Eighteen, and twelve,
learned, in his generation, their heart).31

we

R. Johanan stated: I spent eighteen days at R.

Oshaia Beribi32 and learned from him only
one word in our Mishnah, viz., that HOW
ARE THE SABBATH BOUNDARIES OF
TOWNS EXTENDED is to be read as
me'aberin33 with an aleph. But, surely, this is
not correct.
For did not R. Johanan state, R. Oshaia
Beribi had twelve disciples and I spent
eighteen days among them and gained a
knowledge of every one's intellectual
powers34 and of every one's wisdom? Now, is
It likely that he gained a knowledge of every
one's intellectual powers and of every one's
wisdom and yet did not learn any Gemara?35
If you like I may reply: He may have
learnt much from them, but from him he did
not learn [more than the one word]. And if
you prefer I might reply: He meant to say
that in our Mishnah he learned only one
word.36
R. Johanan further stated: When we were
studying Torah at R. Oshaia's eight of us
used to sit in the space of one cubit.37 Rabbi
stated: When we were studying Torah at R.
Eleazar b. Shammua a six of us used to sit in
one cubit.37
R. Johanan further stated: R. Oshaia Beribi
in his generation was like R. Meir in his
generation. As was the case with R. Meir in
his generation that his colleagues could not
fathom the depth of his knowledge38 so was it

ERUVIN 53a-79a
with R. Oshaia that his colleagues could not
fathom the depth of his knowledge.
R. Johanan further stated: The hearts39 of
the ancients were like the door of the Ulam,40
but that of the last generations was like the
door of the Hekal,40 but ours is like the eye of
a fine needle. R. Akiba is classed among the
ancients; R. Eleazar b. Shammua among the
last generations. Others say: R. Eleazar b.
Shammua is classed among the ancients and
R. Oshaia Beribi among the last generations
But ours is like the eye of a fine needle
And we, said Abaye, are like a peg in a wall
in respect of Gemara.41 And we, said Raba,
are like a finger in wax as regards logical
argument.42 We, said R. Ashi, are like a
finger in a pit43 as regards forgetfulness.44
Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: The
Judeans who cared for [the beauty of] their
language retained their learning,45 but the
Galileans who did not care for [the beauty of]
their language46 did not retain their learning.
But does this47 depend on whether one cares
[for linguistic beauty]? Rather say: The
Judeans who were exact in their language,48
and who laid down mnemonics for their aid,
retained their learning; but the Galileans
who were not exact in their language,49 and
who laid down no mnemonic as an aid, did
not retain their learning. The50 Judeans who
learned from one Master retained their
learning, but the Galileans who did not learn
from one Master did not retain their
learning.
Rabina said: The Judeans who made their
studies accessible to the public51 retained
their learning, but the Galileans who did not
make their studies accessible to the public did
not retain their learning. David made his
studies accessible52 and Saul did not make his
studies accessible. Of David who made his
studies accessible it is written in Scripture:
They that fear Thee shall see me and be
glad;53 but of Saul who did not make his
studies accessible to the public it is written:
And whithersoever he turned himself

(1) Lit., the measure is brought out.

(2) Lit., over against them, the houses, turrets,
etc. that projected. If a projection, for instance,
was at one point, the boundary line is drawn along
the outer side of that projection in a straight
perpendicular line, to both extremities of that side
of the town.
(3) That are drawn at a distance of two thousand
cubits from the said boundaries of the town.
(4) Lit., and they make them (Rashi and Bah).
Cur. edd., it, i.e., the area of the town.
(5) Where the boundary line of the town had the
shape of a square. If it had that of a parallelogram
the Sabbath limits, drawn parallel to it at the
prescribed distances of two thousand cubits,
assume also a similar shape. By SQUARE the
circular shape only is intended to be excluded (cf.
following note).
(6) That would have been excluded and lost had
the Sabbath limits been drawn at distances of two
thousand cubits from the sides of the square or
parallelogram in which the Sabbath boundaries of
the town were shaped.
(7) For the movements of the people of the town.
(8) In our Mishnah.
(9) from rt. in pi'el to be pregnant.
(10) from rt. in pi'el, to make a wing.
(11) Sc. another projection is assumed to have
been added to the one already existing so that the
entire side may represent a straight and
continuous boundary line.
(12) The following discussions on the
interpretations of certain Biblical words are cited
apropos the present and similar discussions on the
interpretation of a word in our Mishnah.
(13) ( rt. to double) Gen. XXIII, 9.
(14) The rt. signifies multiplication as well as
doubling.
(15) It was the burial place of four couples (cf.
Gen. XLIX, 31 and the following paragraph).
(16) Gen. XXXV, 27.
(17) four.
(18) Gen. XIV, 1.
(19) Cf. Gen, X, 8ff.
(20) is read as he said ( rt. )cast.
(21) Lit., furnace of fire.
(22) Nimrod from the rt. to rebel.
(23) Euphemism for God.
(24) Ex. I, 8.
(25) The former king.
(26) new, read as a verb in pi'el to make
new.
(27) Ex. I, 8.
(28) Ex. I, 8. Is it possible that the former king did
not know him?
(29) In his persecution of Joseph's people.
(30) An aid to the recollection of some of the
following statements of R. Johanan.
(31) For the last two phrases cf. marg. n. Cur.
edd., in David, and he built.

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(32) , a scholar of Rabbi or R. Judah I haNasi. Aliter: A great man (Rashi). V. Nazir, Sonc.
ed. p. 64, n. 1.
(33)
(34) Lit., heart.
(35) Except the one word in our Mishnah. On
Gemara v. Glos.
(36) In other Mishnahs and Baraithas he may
have learnt many things.
(37) So anxious were the students to learn that
they crowded into a small space in order to be
near to the Master.
(38) Cf. supra 13b.
(39) Sc. their intellectual powers.
(40) The Ulam and the Hekal (v. supra 2a) were
two of the chambers which together with the
Debir constituted the Temple. The door of the
Ulam was twenty cubits wide while that of the
Hekal was only ten.
(41) It was as difficult for them to master their
studies as it is difficult to force a peg into a wall.
(42) A finger cannot penetrate through hard wax.
It only depresses it very slightly.
(43) var. lec. , bung-hole].
(44) As it is easy to insert a finger into the mouth
of a pit [or bung-hole], so easy was it for them to
forget what they learned.
(45) Lit., their Torah was confirmed in their
hand.
(46) V. infra.
(47) Lit., the thing, learning.
(48) Carefully reproducing the traditions they
received from their masters.
(49) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(50) Var. lec. And if you prefer I might say: The
(v. marg. n.).
(51) Lit., they revealed the text (they studied).
(52) Cf. Ber. 4a, and M.K. 16a.
(53) Ps. CXIX, 74.

Eruvin 53b
he acted wrongly.1
R. Johanan further stated: Whence is it
deduced that the Holy One, blessed be He,
pardoned him2 for that sin?3 From
[Scripture] where it says: Tomorrow shalt
thou, and thy sons be with me,4 with me5
implies: In my [celestial] division.
R. Abba requested: Is there anyone who
would enquire of the Judeans who are exact
in their language whether we learned6
me'aberin or me'aberin and whether we
learned7 akuzo or akuzo,8 for they would

know [the correct spelling]. When they were

asked they replied: Some authorities learn
me'aberin while others learn me'aberin, some
learn akuzo while others learn akuzo. The
Judeans were exact in their language. For
instance?9
A Judean once announced that he had a
cloak to sell. What, he was asked: is the
color of your cloak? Like that of beet10 on
the ground, he replied. The Galileans who
were not exact in their language. For
instance?9
A11 certain Galilean once went about
enquiring, who has amar?12 Foolish
Galilean, they said to him, do you mean an
"ass" for riding, "wine" to drink, "wool" for
clothing or a "lamb" for killing? A woman13
once wished to say to her friend, Come, I
would give you some fat to eat but that what
she actually said to her was, My cast-away,14
may a lioness devour you.15 A certain
woman once appeared before a judge and
addressed him as follows: My master slave,16
I had a child17 and they stole you from me,18
and it is of such a size that if they had hanged
you upon it, your feet would not have
reached to the ground.19
When Rabbi's20 maid indulged in enigmatic
speech she used to say this: The ladle strikes
against the jar,21 let the eagles fly to their
nests;22 and when she wished them to remain
at table she used to tell them, The crown23 of
her friend24 shall be removed and the ladle
will float in the jar like a ship that sails in the
sea.
R. Jose b. Asiyan, when speaking
enigmatically, used to say: Prepare for me a
bull in judgment25 on a poor mountain;26
and when he enquired about an inn-keeper
he spoke thus: The man of this raw mouth27
what comforts does he provide?28
R. Abbahu, when indulging in enigmatic
speech, used to say this: Make the coals
ethrog like,29 flatten out the golden cobbles,30
and prepare for me two tellers in the dark.31

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Others read: And let them prepare for me
on them two tellers in the dark.
The Rabbis said to R. Abbahu: Show us
where R. Elai is hiding.32 He replied: He
amused himself with an Aaronide girl, his
last keen companion, and she kept him
awake.33 Some say that this referred to a
woman34 and others say that it referred to a
tractate.35 They said to R. Elai: Show us32
where R. Abbahu is hiding.32 He replied: He
consulted the crown-maker36 and betook
himself to Mephibosheth37 in the South.38
R. Joshua b. Hananiah remarked: No one has
ever had the better of me except a woman, a
little boy and a little girl. What was the
incident with the woman? I was once staying
at an inn where the hostess served39 me with
beans. On the first day I ate all of them
leaving nothing. On the second day too l left
nothing. On the third day she over seasoned
them40 with salt, and, as soon as I tasted
them, I withdrew my hand. My Master, she
said to me, why do you not eat? I have
already eaten, I replied: earlier in the41
day". You should then, she said to lie, have
withdrawn your hand from the bread. My
Master, she continued, is it possible that
you left42 [the dish to-day] as compensation43
for the former42 meals, for have not the Sages
laid down: Nothing43 is to be left44 in the pot45
but something must be left46 in the plate?47
What was the incident with the little girl? I
was once on a journey and, observing48 a
path across a field, I made my way through
it, when a little girl called out to me, Master!
Is not this part of the field? No, I
replied: this is a trodden path Robbers
like yourself, she retorted: have trodden it
down
What was the incident with the little boy? I
was once on a journey when I noticed a little
boy sitting at a cross-road. By what road, I
asked him, do we go to the town? This
one, he replied: is short but long and that
one is long but short. I proceeded along the
short but long road. When I approached the

town I discovered that it was hedged in by

gardens and orchards. Turning back I said to
him, My son, did you not tell me that this
road was short? And, he replied: did I
not also tell you: But long? I kissed him
upon his head and said to him, Happy are
you, O Israel, all of you are wise, both young
and old.
R. Jose the Galilean was once on a journey
when he met Beruriah.49 By what road, he
asked her, do we go to Lydda? Foolish
Galilean, she replied: did not the Sages say
this: Engage not in much talk with women?50
You should have asked: By which to Lydda?
Beruriah once discovered a student who was
learning in an undertone.
(1) I Sam. XIV, 47. E.V. put them to worse.
(2) Saul.
(3) The execution of the priests of Nob (I Sam.
XXII, 18ff).
(4) I Sam. XXVIII, 19.
(5) Sc. with Samuel who addressed this message to
Saul when he consulted him through the woman of
En-dor (1 Sam.
XXVIII, 7ff).
(6) In our Mishnah.
(7) In the Mishnah Bek. 40a.
(8) Euphemism for the buttocks or testicles.
(9) Lit., what is it?
(10) Or tomatoes.
(11) Cur. edd. in parenthesis, for it was taught.
(12) As he spoke indistinctly it was not clear
whether he meant amar ( wool), imar (
a lamb) hamor ( an ass) or hamar (
wine).
(13) A Galilean whose speech was indistinct.
(14) my friend sounded like ( rt.
)my cast away.
(15) that I may give you some fat to
eat sounded like may a lioness, etc.
(16) Gr. ** What she wanted to say was
Gr. ** lord.
(17) Or log, beam, . She meant a
board.
(18) . What she had in mind was
they stole it (Sc. the board) from me.
(19) What she wished to say was that the board
was so big that if it had been suspended from the
judge it would have reached to the ground.
(20) So MS.M. Cur. edd. of the house of Rabbi.
(21) All the wine in the jar has been used up.
(22) The students may now leave the dining room
for their lodgings.

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(23) The bung. ( v. Maharsha). Cur. edd., .
(24) The adjoining jar.
(25) beet or tomatoes. The word is
composed of ( bull) and ( judgment);
(26) With mustard. The word is made up of
( mountain) and ( poor).
(27) ( inn-keeper) is made up of (
man), ( mouth) ( this) and ( raw).
(V. R. Han., Tosaf. s.v. a.l.).
(28) Lit., what is this good that there is?
(29) V. Glos.; red hot like the color of the fruit.
(30) The coals that are glowing like gold (Rashi).
Aliter (Jast.): Make the gold (glowing coals) skyblue (fan them so as to give blue flames).
(31) Cocks who crow at night.
(32) ( from rt. Hif. to look) and
(rt. Kal to hide). A play upon the similarity
of the sounds.
(33) A play upon the words, ' '
.
(34) He married a second wife (last) who was of
the tribe of Aaron (Aaronide) aid of a
charmingly keen disposition.
(35) He was engaged all night in the study of his
last chosen tractate dealing with priestly
(Aaronide) laws and bristling with keen
dialectical arguments.
(36) The nasi (v. Glos.) who ordained the Rabbis
and crowned them so to speak as religious leaders.
(37) Synonymous with noted scholar (cf. Ber.
4a).
(38) The Scholars in the South.
(39) Lit., made.
(40) Hif, to cause to burn, to spoil.
(41) Lit., While it was yet.
(42) So Elijah Wilna's glosses. Cur. edd. you did
not leave...in the first.
(43) Lit., side; the portion of food that must be
left for the waiter.
(44) By the waiter.
(45) From which the contents is ladled into the
plates.
(46) By the guest.
(47) Cf. the reading quoted by Tosaf. s.v.
a.l. [According to Derek Erez. VI the reading is
that one is to leave something of pastry but not of
a boiled dish].
(48) Lit., and there was.
(49) The wife of R. Meir, a woman who was
famous for her sagacity, learning and character.
(50) Aboth I, 5.

Eruvin 54a
Rebuking him1 she exclaimed: Is it not
written: Ordered in all things, and sure:2 If
it3 is ordered in your two hundred and

forty-eight limbs it will be sure, otherwise4

it will not be sure?
One taught: R. Eliezer5 had a disciple who
learned in a low voice. After three years he
forgot his learning.
One taught: R. Eliezer had a student who
deserved burning [for an offence] against the
Omnipresent Leave him alone, the
Rabbis pleaded, he attended on a great
man.
Samuel said to Rab Judah, Shinena,6 open
your mouth and read the Scriptures, open
your mouth and learn the Talmud, that your
studies may be retained and that you may
live long, since it is said: For they7 are life
unto those that find them, and a healing to all
their flesh;8 read not To those that find
them9 but To him who utters them10 with
his mouth.
Samuel further said to Rab Judah, Shinena,
hurry on and eat, hurry on and drink,11 since
the world from which we must depart is like
a wedding feast.12
Rab said to R. Hamnuna, My son, according
to thy ability13 do good to thyself, for there is
no enjoyment in she'ol nor will death be long
in coming. And shouldst thou say: "I would
leave a portion for my children" who will
tell thee in the grave?14 The children of man
are like the grasses of the field, some blossom
and some fade.15
R. Joshua b. Levi stated: If a man is on a
journey and has no company16 let hin, occupy
himself with the study of the Torah, since it is
said in Scripture: For they17 shall be a
chaplet18 of grace.19 If he feels pains in his
head, let him engage in the study of the
Torah, since it is said: For they17 shall be a
chaplet of grace unto thy head.19 If he feels
pains in his throat let him engage in the study
of the Torah, since it is said: And chains
about thy neck.19 If he feels pains in his
bowels, let him engage in the study of the
Torah, since it is said: It20 shall be a healing

ERUVIN 53a-79a
to thy navel.21 If he feels pain in his bones, let
him engage in the study of the Torah, since it
is said: And marrow to thy bones.21 If he feels
pain in all his body, let him engage in the
study of the Torah, since it is said: And
healing to all his flesh.22
R. Judah son of R. Hiyya remarked: Come
and see how the dispensation23 of mortals24 is
not like that of the Holy One, blessed be He.
In the dispensation of mortals, when a man
administers a drug to a fellow it may be
beneficial to one limb but injurious to
another, but with the Holy One, blessed be
He, it is not So. He gave a Torah to Israel and
it is a drug of life for all his body, as it is said:
And healing to all his flesh.25
R. Ammi said: What is the exposition of the
Scriptural text: For it is a pleasant thing if
thou keep them within thee; let them be
established altogether upon thy lips?26 When
are the words of the Torah pleasant?
When thou keepest them within thee. And
when wilt thou keep them within thee? When
they will be established altogether upon thy
lips.27
R. Zera said, [This28 may be derived] from
the following: A man hath joy in the answer
of his mouth; and a word in due season, how
good is it!29 When hath a man joy? When
he has an answer in his mouth.28 Another
version: When hath a man joy in the answer
of his mouth? When the word is in due
season; O, how good is this!
R. Isaac said: This28 may be derived from the
following: But the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that
thou mayest do it;30 when is it very nigh unto
thee? When it is in thy mouth and in thy
heart to do it.28
Raba said: It28 may be derived from the
following: Thou hast given him his heart's
desire, and the utterance31 of his lips Thou
hast not withholden. Selah.32 When hast
Thou given him his heart's desire? At the

time when Thou hast not withholden the

utterance of his lips.28 Selah.32
Raba pointed out an incongruity: It is
written: Thou hast given him his heart's33
desire;34 and it is also written: And the
utterance of his lips35 Thou hast not
withholden. Selah?36 If he is worthy, Thou
hast given him his heart's desire,34 but if he
is unworthy, The utterance of his lips Thou
hast not withholden. Selah.36
It was taught at the school of R. Eliezer b.
Jacob: Wherever [in Scripture] the
expression of nezah, selah or wa'ed37 occurs
the process to which it refers never ceases
Nezah? Since it is written For I will not
contend for ever, neither will I be always38
wroth.39 Selah. Since it is written: As we
have heard, so have we seen in the city of the
Lord of hosts, in the city of our God God
establish it forever. Selah.40 Wa'ed? Since it
is written: The Lord shall reign forever and
ever.41
(Mnemonic:42 Chains, his cheeks, tables
graven.)
R. Eleazar43 said; What is the purport of the
Scriptural text: And chains about thy neck?44
If a man trains himself to be like a chain that
hangs loosely upon the neck,45 and is
sometimes
exposed
and
sometimes
concealed,46 his learning will be preserved by
him, otherwise it will not.
R. Eleazar further stated: What is the
purport of the Scriptural text: His cheeks are
as a bed of slices?47 If a man allows himself to
be treated as a bed upon which everybody
treads,48 and as spices with which everybody
perfumes himself,49 his learning will be
preserved, but otherwise it will not.
R. Eleazar50 further stated: What is the
purport of the Scriptural text: Tables of
stone?51 If a man regards his cheeks52 as
stone that is not easily worn away,53 his
learning will be preserved by him, but
otherwise it will not.

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Eleazar50 further stated: What is the
purport of the Scriptural text: Graven upon
the tables?54 If the first tables had not been
broken the Torah would never have been
forgotten in Israel.55
R. Aha b. Jacob said: No nation or tongue
would have had any power over them;56 for it
says: Graven54 read not graven57 but
freedom.58
R. Mattena expounded: What is the purport
of the Scriptural text: And from the
wilderness to Mattanah?59 If a man allows
himself to be treated as a wilderness on which
everybody treads, his study will be retained60
by him, otherwise it will not.
R. Joseph had a grievance against Raba son
of R. Joseph b. Hama. When the eve of the
Day of Atonement approached the latter
thought, I shall go and pacify him
Proceeding to R. Joseph's house he found his
attendant engaged in mixing for him a cup of
wine.61 Give it to me, Raba62 said to him,
and I will mix it. He gave it to him and the
latter duly mixed it. As he63 tasted it, he
remarked: This mixing is like that of Raba
son of R. Joseph b. Hama.62 I am here the
other answered. Do not sit down upon your
legs,64 R. Joseph said to him, before you
have explained to me these verses. What is
the purport of the Scriptural text: And from
the wilderness to Mattanah, and front
Mattanah to Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel to
Bamoth, and front Bamoth to the valley?65
If, the other replied: a man allows
himself to be treated as the wilderness upon
which everybody treads, the Torah will be
given to him as a gift;66 and so soon as it is
given to him as a gift, he will be the
inheritance of God67 as it says: And from
Mattanah66 to Nahaliel;60 and as soon as he is
the inheritance of God, he rises to
greatness,68 since it says: And from Nahaliel67
to Bamoth.68 But if he is haughty, the Holy
One, blessed be He, humbles him, as it says:
And from Bamoth68 to the valley.69 If,
however, he repents, the Holy One, blessed be

He, raises him, as it says: Every valley69 shall

be lifted up.70
R. Huna said: What is the purport of the
Scriptural text: Thy flock settled therein;
Thou preparest in Thy goodness for the poor,
O God?71 If a man behaves like an animal
that treads upon its prey and eats it72 or, as
others say, that drags it and eats it,73 his
learning will be preserved by him, otherwise
it will not If, however, lie does behave in
this manner the Holy One, blessed be He, will
himself prepare a banquet for him, as it says
in Scripture. Thou, didst prepare in Thy
goodness for the poor, O Lord.74
R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan
expounded: With reference to the Scriptural
text: Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the
fruit thereof,75 why were the words of the
Torah compared to the fig tree? As with the
fig tree76
(1) Lit., she kicked him.
(2) II Sam. XXIII, 5.
(3) The Torah, learning.
(4) Lit., and if not, if some of the limbs, in this
case the organs of speech, are not used.
(5) Var. lec. E. b. Jacob.
(6) keen-witted (rt. to sharpen), man
of iron endurance, (cf. rocky crag), or
long toothed (cf. tooth). V. B.B., Sonc. ed.
vol. II, p. 561, n. 14.
(7) The words of the Torah which includes both
the written and the oral law.
(8) Prov. IV, 22.
(9) ( rt. in Kal to find).
(10) ( rt. in Hif. to bring out,
utter).
(11) Sc. do not postpone any enjoyments or
pleasures.
(12) Which comes all too soon to an abrupt end.
Cf. make hay while the sun shines (Eng. prov.).
(13) Lit., if thou hast.
(14) Whether it is being put to good use.
(15) Cf. Eccl. XIV, 11f, 15f, 18.
(16)
(17) V. supra n. 1.
(18) const. of ( v. prev. n. but one).
(19) Prov. I, 9.
(20) The Torah.
(21) Prov. III, 8.
(22) Ibid. IV, 22.
(23) Lit., measure.
(24) Lit., flesh and blood.

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(25) Prov. IV, 22.
(26) Ibid. XXII, 18.
(27) By being uttered clearly and methodically.
(28) Cf. prev. n. and text.
(29) Ibid. XV, 23.
(30) Deut. XXX, 14.
(31) E.V. request.
(32) Ps. XXI, 3.
(33) Emphasis on heart.
(34) I.e., as soon as he would desire it, it would be
given him.
(35) Emphasis on lips.
(36) I.e., his desire would not be granted unless he
actually asked for it.
(37) ' '.
(38) .
(39) Isa. LVII, 16.
(40) , Ps. XLVIII, 9.
(41) , Ex. XV, 18.
(42) Containing the Biblical expressions R.
Eleazar is about to expound.
(43) So MS.M. and marg. note. Cur. edd. in
parenthesis Eliezer.
(44) Prov. 1, 9.
(45) Sc. he is pleasant and conciliatory.
(46) He is not always in the public eye.
(47) Cant. V, 13.
(48) Humility.
(49) Benefiting others.
(50) V. supra n. 6.
(51) Ex. XXXI, 18.
(52) tables, is Midrashically interpreted as
cheeks.
(53) He incessantly aid repeatedly teaches the
Torah to others and disregards the constant strain
upon his facial muscles.
(54) Ex. XXXII, 16.
(55) It would have remained graven forever.
(56) Israel.
(57) .
(58) . For the sake of the tables Israel would
have ever been free.
(59) Num. XXI, 18.
(60) Mattanah gift from rt. to give. The
Torah will be given to him as a gift and he will
never forge it.
(61) On account of its strength their wine had to
be diluted in a certain proportion of water before
it could be served.
(62) Who was an expert in the art of mixing.
(63) R. Joseph who was blind and unaware of
Raba's presence.
(64) The Eastern custom of sitting with legs folded
under the body.
(65) Num. XXI, 18ff.
(66) V. supra n. 1.
(67) Nahaliel is read as .
(68) Bamoth signifying heights.
(69) Symbolic of a humble position.
(70) Isa. XL, 4.

(71) Ps. LXVIII, 11.

(72) Sc. as the animal proceeds to eat its prey as
soon as it has trampled it on the ground so does
the student proceed to revise his lessons as soon as
he has them from his master.
(73) I.e., as the animal consumes its prey despite
the unpleasantness of taste that it contracts in the
course of being trailed in the dust or mud, so does
the student persist in his studies, despite the
unpleasantness he experiences in understanding
or memorizing them.
(74) Ps. LXVIII, 11.
(75) Prov. XXVII, 18.
(76) Since all its fruit does ripen at the same time.

Eruvin 54b
the more one1 searches it the more figs one
finds in it so it is with the words of the Torah;
the more one1 studies them the more relish he
finds in them.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani expounded: With
reference to the Scriptural text: Loving hind
and a graceful roe, etc.2 why were the words
of the Torah compared to a hind? To tell
you that as the hind has a narrow womb and
is loved by its mate at all times as at the first
hour of their meeting, so it is with the words
of the Torah They are loved by those who
study them at all times as at the hour when
they first made their acquaintance. And in
graceful roe? Because the Torah bestows
grace upon those who study it. Her breasts
will satisfy thee at all times.2 Why were the
words of the Torah compared to a breast? As
with a breast, however often the child sucks3
it so often does he find milk in it, so it is with
the words of the Torah. As often a man
studies them so often does he find relish in
them With her love wilt thou be ravished
always,2 as was the case with R. Eleazar4 b.
Pedath, for instance.
It was said of R. Eleazar4 that he sat and
studied Torah in the lower market of
Sepphoris while his linen cloak lay in the
upper market of the town.5 R.6 Isaac b.
Eleazar related: A man once came to take it
and found a venomous serpent in it.7 It was
taught at the school of R. Anan: What is the
exposition of the scriptural text, ye that ride

ERUVIN 53a-79a
on white asses, ye that sit on rich cloths, and
ye that walk by the way, tell of it?8 Ye that
ride on asses refers to the learned men9 who
travel from town to town and from province
to province to study10 the Torah. White11
means that they clarify it like noonday.12
That sit on rich cloths13 means that they
give true judgment for the sake of the truth.14
That walk refers to the students of
Scripture; by the way refers to the students
of the Mishnah; tell of it refers to the
students of the Talmud all of whose talk
consists of the words of the Torah.
R. Shezbi stated in the name of R. Eleazar b.
Azariah: What is the exposition of the text:
The slothful man shall not hunt his prey?15
The cunning hunter16 will not live long.17 R.
Shesheth expounded: The cunning hunter18
will roast.19 When R. Dimi came20 he said:
This21 may be likened to a fowler who hunts
birds. If he breaks he wings of each bird as
he shoots it down22 his catch is secure,
otherwise it is not.
Raba23 expounded in the name of R. Sehora
who had it from R. Huna: What is the
purport of the text: Wealth gotten by vanity
shall be diminished, but he that gathereth
little by little shall increase?24 If a man
studies much at a time25 his learning
decreases,26 and if lie does not do so but
gathereth little by little he shall increase.27
Raba23 remarked: The Rabbis are well aware
of this advice28 and yet disregard it.29 R.
Nahman b. Isaac said: I acted on this advice
and my study remained with me.
Our Rabbis learned: What was the
procedure of the instruction in the oral law?
Moses learned from the mouth of the
Omnipotent. Then Aaron entered and Moses
taught him his lesson. Aaron then moved
aside and sat down on Moses left. Thereupon
Aaron's sons entered and Moses taught them
their lesson. His sons then moved aside,
Eleazar taking his seat on Moses right and
Ithamar on Aaron's left.

R. Judah stated: Aaron was always on Moses

right. Thereupon the elders entered and
Moses taught them their lesson, and when the
elders moved aside all the people entered and
Moses taught them their lesson. It thus
followed that Aaron heard the lesson30 four
times, his sons heard it three times, the elders
twice and all the people once. At this stage
Moses departed and Aaron taught them his
lesson. Then Aaron departed and his sons
taught them their lesson. His sons then
departed and the elders taught them their
lesson. It thus followed that everybody heard
the lesson four times.
From here R. Eliezer inferred: It is a man's
duty to teach his pupil [his lesson] four times.
For this is arrived at a minori ad majus:
Aaron who learned from Moses who had it
from the Omnipotent had to learn his lesson
four times31 how much more so an ordinary
pupil who learns from an ordinary teacher.
R. Akiba stated: Whence is it deduced that a
man must go on teaching his pupil until he
has mastered the subject? From Scripture
where it says: And teach thou it to the
children of Israel.32 And whence is it deduced
that it must be taught until the students are
well versed in it?33 From Scripture where it
says. Put it in their mouths.34 And whence is
it inferred that it is also his duty to explain to
him the reasons?35 It has been said: Now
these are the ordinances which thou shalt put
before them.36 But why did they not all
learn37 direct from Moses?38 In order to
give a share of the honour39 to Aaron, his
sons, and the elders. Then40 [why was not this
procedure41 adopted:] Aaron might enter and
learn from Moses,42 his sons might then enter
and learn from Aaron,42 then the elders
might enter and learn from his sons42 and
these finally might teach all Israel?42 As
Moses learned from the mouth of the
Omnipotent his own teaching was of greater
value.43
The Master said: R. Judah stated: Aaron
was always on Moses right. Whose view is
represented in the following where it was

10

ERUVIN 53a-79a
taught: If three men were going the same
way, the Master is to be in the middle, the
more important of the other two44 on his
right and the less important45 on his left?46
Must it be held that it represents the view of
R. Judah and not that of the Rabbis?47 It48
may be said to agree even with the view of the
Rabbis, since Aaron's trouble had to be taken
into consideration.49
R. Pereda had a pupil whom he taught his
lesson four hundred times before the latter
could master it. On a certain day having been
requested to attend to a religious matter he
taught him as usual but the pupil could not
master the subject. What, the Master
asked: is the matter50 to-day? From the
moment, the other replied. the Master was
told that there was a religious matter to be
attended to I could not concentrate my
thoughts,51 for at every moment I imagined,
now the Master will get up or now the Master
will get up. Give me your attention, the
Master said, and I will teach you again, and
so he taught him another four hundred times.
A bath kol issued forth asking him,52 Do you
prefer that four hundred years shall be
added to your life or that you and your
generation shall be privileged to have a share
in the world to come? That, he replied.
I and my generation shall be privileged to
have a share in the world to come. Give him
both, said the Holy One, blessed be He.
R. Hisda stated: The Torah can only be
acquired with [the aid of] mnemonic signs,
for it is said: Put it in their mouths;53 read
not, put it54 but its mnemonic sign.55
R. Tahlifa of the West56 heard this and
proceeding to R. Abbahu told it to him.
You, the other said to him, deduce this57
from that text;53 we deduce it from this one:
Set thee up waymarks, make thee, etc.;58
devise [mnemonic] signs59 for the Torah.
What proof, however, is there that the
expression of ziyyun60 means a sign? Since
it is written, And any seeth a man's bone,
then shall be set up a sign61 by it.62

R. Eleazar said: The deduction63 is made

from this text: Say unto wisdom, Thou art
my sister, and call understanding they
kinswoman,64 devise [mnemonic] signs65 for
the Torah Raba expounded: Appoint fixed
times66 for the study of the Torah.
(1) Lit., all the time that a man.
(2) Prov. V, 19.
(3) Lit., feels, searches.
(4) So marg. n. and Bomb. ed. Cur. edd. in
parenthesis Eliezer.
(5) So absorbed was he in his studies that he forgot
to take his cloak with him (cf. R. Han.) Rashi
explains ( here rendered thou wilt be
ravished) as thou wilt make a fool of thyself (rt.
to err, be confused) by neglecting one's
work or trade and engaging in study. R. Eleazar
presumably left his cloak with his wares in the
upper market while, absorbed in his studies, he
went down to the lower one oblivious of both his
cloak and his wares.
(6) Cur. edd. in parenthesis. It was taught.
(7) Providential protection of the property of the
just.
(8) Judg. V, 10.
(9) Lit., disciples of the wise (v. Glos. s.v. Talmid
Hakam).
(10) Cur. edd. in parenthesis insert in it.
(11) ( rt. ).
(12) ( rt. )interchange of and .
(13) = ( judgment)..
(14) [Lit., true to its own truth; an absolutely
true verdict arrived at by the judge in his
endeavor to find out the truth himself without
relying solely on the evidence, v. Tosaf. B.B. 8b,
s.v. ].
(15) Prov. XII, 27.
(16) ( slothful), is expounded by a play upon
the words as cunning and ( his prey)
as hunter. The reference is to one who
possesses no knowledge and pretends to be a
scholar.
(17) , lit., shall not live nor
have length of days, a play upon the words
( shall not hunt).
(18) Cf. supra n. 12. R. Shesheth, however, gives
the appellation of cunning hunter to the fowler
who proceeds in the manner R. Dimi is about to
describe.
(19) The birds lie caught. ( rt. to roast).
His exposition of the verse is as follows: Shall not
the cunning hunter roast his prey? Of course he
shall being the implied reply. Cunning hunter
thus refers to the student who learns section by
section, thoroughly revising and consolidating
each before proceeding to the next (cf. R. Dimi's
parable that follows).
(20) From Palestine to Babylon.

11

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(21) The manner of study just referred to (cf.
supra p. 380, n. 15, final clause).
(22) Lit., first, first.
(23) So marg. n. Cur. edd. in parentheses,
Rabbah.
(24) Prov. XII. 11.
(25) Lit., makes his Torah bundles, bundles, a
play upon the word for by vanity reading
as ( bundle).
(26) An overburdened memory can retain but
little.
(27) His store of knowledge.
(28) Lit., thing.
(29) Lit., transgress it.
(30) Lit., they were found in the hand of.
(31) Lit., thus.
(32) Deut. XXXI, 19; emphasis on teach.
(33) Lit., arranged in order in their mouth.
(34) Deut. XXXI, 19: emphasis on put... mouth.
(35) Lit., to show the face. . . that it is not enough
to teach dogmatically.
(36) Ex. XXI. 1, emphasis on put before (cf.
Rashi). to show him the face may
be a play upon the word , before them.
(37) MS. M. Let the elders enter and learn. Bah,
Let them all enter, etc.
(38) The four times required.
(39) Of instructing the people.
(40) If it was desired to honor Aaron, his sons and
the elders.
(41) Which would have conferred greater
distinction on each individual or group as
compared with the group that followed.
(42) The four times required.
(43) Lit., the thing is supported.
(44) Lit., and the great.
(45) Lit., and the small.
(46) V. Yoma 37a.
(47) Who hold that Aaron took his seat on Moses
left. Is it likely, however, that an anonymous
ruling would agree with an individual contrary to
the view of the majority?
(48) The Baraitha cited.
(49) As he had to sit on the left of Moses when the
two were alone, he was allowed to remain in the
same position, even after the others had entered,
in order to save him the trouble of moving from
one place to another.
(50) Lit., what is the difference.
(51) Lit., I removed my mind.
(52) R. Pereda.
(53) Deut. XXXI, 19.
(54) .
(55) ( cf. prev. n.) a play upon the similarity
of the two expressions.
(56) Palestine which lay to the west of Babylon
where the statement was made.
(57) The need for mnemotechnical aids.
(58) Jer. XXXI, 21.

(59) , the same term as that used in the text

for waymarks.
(60) , sing. Of ( v. prev. n.).
(61) V. p. 383, n. 13.
(62) Ezek. XXXIX, 15.
(63) V. p. 383, n. 10.
(64) Prov. VII, 4.
(65) , pl. of , the term used in the tent
for kinswoman.
(66) sing. an appointed time,
obtained by transposition of the letters in ( cf.
prev. n.).

Eruvin 55a
This1 is in harmony with the following
statement of R.2 Abdimi b. Hama b. Dosa:3
What is the significance of the text: It is not
in heaven, [that thou shouldst say: who shall
go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto
us],4 neither is it beyond the sea [that thou
shouldst sat, Who shall go over the sea for
us, and bring it unto us]?5 It is not in
heaven, for if it were in heaven you should
have gone up after it; and if it were beyond
the sea, you should have gone over the sea
after it.
Raba6 expounded, It is not in heaven,4 it7 is
not to be found with him who, because he
possesses some knowledge of it, towers in his
pride as high8 as the heavens, [neither is it
beyond the sea] it is not found with him who,
because of some knowledge of it, is as
expansive in his self-esteem9 as the sea.
R. Johanan10 expounded: It is not in
heaven, it11 is not to be found among the
arrogant;12 neither is it beyond the sea, it is
not to be found among merchants or
dealers.13
Our Rabbis taught: How are the Sabbath
boundaries of towns extended? [If a town is]
long the Sabbath limits are measured from
its normal boundaries.14 If it is round corners
are added to it.15 If it is square no corners are
added to it.16 If it was wide on one side and
narrow on the other17 it is regarded as if both
its sides were equal.18 If one house
projected19 like a turret, or if two houses
projected20 like two turrets, they are to be

12

ERUVIN 53a-79a
treated as if a thread had been drawn beside
them in a straight line, and the two thousand
cubits are measured from that line
outwards.21 If the town was shaped like a
bow22 or like a gamma,23 it is to be regarded
as if it had been full of houses and
courtyards, and the two thousand cubits are
measured from the imaginary boundaries
outwards.24
The Master said: [If a town is] long the
Sabbath limits are measured from its normal
boundaries. But is this not obvious? The
ruling is required in a case where it was long
but narrow. Since it might have been
presumed that the width should be regarded
as equal to its length.25 we were informed
[that the law was not so]. If it is square
shaped no corners are added to it. Is not this
obvious?
This was only required in a case where it is
square shaped but the sides of the square are
not parallel with the four directions of the
world. As it might have been presumed that
it should be deemed to be enclosed in an
imaginary square whose sides are parallel
with the four directions of the world, we were
informed [that this is not permitted]. If one
house projected like a turret, or if two houses
projected like two turrets. Now that you said
that the law applied to one house, was it also
necessary to mention two houses?
The ruling was necessary in that case only
where the two houses were respectively on
two sides of the town. As it might have been
presumed that we apply the law only where a
projecting house was on one side but not
when houses were projecting on two sides, we
were informed [that the law is applied to the
latter case also]. If the town was shaped like
a bow or like a gamma, it is to be regarded as
if it had been full of houses and courtyards,
and the two thousand cubits are measured
from its imaginary boundaries.
R. Huna laid down: If a town is shaped like a
bow, then, if the distance between its two
ends26 is less than four thousand cubits,27 the

Sabbath limits are measured from the bowstring,28 otherwise measuring must begin
from the arch.29 But could R. Huna have laid
down such a ruling?30 Did not R. Huna in
fact rule: If a breach was made in a town
wall,31 [the houses on both sides of the breach
are regarded as belonging to the same town if
the distance between them is] no more than a
hundred and forty-one and a third
cubits?32
Rabbah b. Ulla replied: This is no difficulty,
since the former33 deals with a case where the
gap was only on one side34 while the latter
deals with one that had breaches on two
sides.35 Then what does he36 inform us? That
a karpaf37 is allowed for each section.38 But
did not R. Huna once lay down such a ruling,
as we learned:
(1) The deduction that it is necessary to resort to
special efforts, such as the device of
mnemotechnical symbols and the like, in order to
acquire a knowledge of the Torah.
(2) So Bah, wanting in cur. edd.
(3) MS.M. R. Dimi b. Hisda.
(4) Deut. XXX, 12.
(5) Ibid. 13.
(6) Var. lec. R. Johanan (She'iltoth, Toledoth,
XIX).
(7) The Torah.
(8) Lit., who lifts up his mind because of it.
(9) Lit., who widens his mind because of it.
(10) Var. lec. Raba (She'iltoth, ibid.).
(11) The Torah.
(12) Cf. notes on previous exposition by Raba.
(13) The sea representing maritime trade.
(14) Lit., as it is This is further explained infra.
(15) Sc. the circumference of the town is deemed
to be enclosed in an imaginary square and the
Sabbath limits are measured from the sides of that
square, the townspeople thus gaining the benefit of
longer distances through the angles of the square:
(16) This is explained infra.
(17) If its northern side, for instance, was wider
than its southern side.
(18) The southern boundary is deemed to be
extended in both directions to the same length as
the northern one, and the extremities of this
imaginary line are deemed to be joined to the
extremities of the northern boundary.
(19) From the town wall.
(20) It is now assumed that both houses were on
the same side of the town.
(21) If the projecting house, for instance, was in a
corner on the northern side of the town, an

13

ERUVIN 53a-79a
imaginary line, parallel to the town in wall, is
drawn across the northern side of the house
towards the western side of the town, and this line
is deemed to represent the boundary of the town
for the purpose of measuring the Sabbath limits.
The respective positions of the two houses
projected is discussed presently.
(22) No houses having been built on the side
corresponding to the bow-string.
(23) Gr. **. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(24) Tosef. Er. IV. Every townsman man,
irrespective of the position of his house, is entitled
to walk two thousand cubits distance from the
imaginary, as well as from the actual boundaries.
(25) I.e., as if the a town were square-shaped and
its shorter sides were equal to its longer ones.
(26) I.e., the side corresponding to the bow string.
(27) So that the Sabbath limit from the one end
overlaps with the Sabbath limit from the opposite
end.
(28) Outwards; and the whole town, as far as its
inhabitants are concerned, is regarded as no
bigger than four cubits within which they may
freely move on the Sabbath in addition to the two
thousand cubits distance beyond the town in all
directions.
(29) Every inhabitant may move no further than
two thousand cubits from his own house in any
direction.
(30) That two sections of a town are regarded as
one where the distance between them is less than
four thousand cubits.
(31) Sc. a breach that completely severed the town
in two distinct sections, no houses intervening.
(32) A distance representing the length of two
karpafs of seventy and two thirds cubits each
(which each town is allowed in addition to the
Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits). But if the
distance was greater, the two sections are
regarded as two different towns. How then could
it be said that R. Huna permitted any distance
within four thousand cubits?
(33) A bow shaped town.
(34) V. supra p. 385, n. 9.
(35) V. supra n. 6.
(36) R. Huna in the last ruling cited.
(37) Of a length of seventy and two thirds cubits.
(38) In the same manner as one is allowed for each
of two adjacent towns which are thereby
combined to form one town for the purposes of
Sabbath movements.

Eruvin 55b
A karpaf is allowed for every town;1 so R.
Meir, but the Sages ruled: A karpaf was
allowed only2 between two towns,3 and in
connect ion with this it was stated: R. Huna

laid down: A karpaf is allowed for each town,

while R. Hiyya b. Rab held: Only one karpaf
is allowed for both towns?4
Both rulings were required. For if we had
been informed only of the ruling here,5 it
might have been presumed [to apply to this
case only] because originally6 all the town
was a permitted domain,7 but not to the case
there.8 And if we had been informed of the
ruling there only, it might have been
presumed [to apply to that case alone]
because [one karpaf is] too cramped for the
use of two towns, but not here9 where the
space of one karpaf would not be too
cramped.10 Hence both rulings were
required. And11 what perpendicular distance
is allowed between the [middle of the
imaginary] bow-string and the arch?Rabbah son of R. Huna12 replied: One of two
thousand cubits.13 Raba the son of Rabbah
son of R. Huna replied: Even one greater
than two thousand cubits. Said Abaye:
Logical reasoning is in agreement with Raba
the son of Rabbah son of R. Huna, since14 any
person can, if he wishes, go around15 by way
of the houses.16
IF
THERE
WERE
RUINS
TEN
HANDBREADTHS HIGH, etc. What is
meant by RUINS? Rab Judah replied:
Three walls without a roof on them.17 The
question was raised: What is the ruling in the
case of two walls upon which there was a
roof?
Come and hear: The following are included
in the Sabbath boundary of a town. A
sepulchral monument of the size of four
cubits by four,18 a bridge or a cemetery that
contains a dwelling chamber, a synagogue
that has a dwelling-house for the hazan,19 a
heathen temple that contains a dwellinghouse for its priests,20 horse-stalls or
storehouses In open fields, to which dwellingchambers are attached, watchmen's huts in a
field, and a house on a sea island.21 All these
are included in the Sabbath boundary of a
town. The following, however, are not

14

ERUVIN 53a-79a
included in it: A sepulchral monument that
was broken on two sides, the gap extending
from one end to the other, a bridge or a
cemetery that contains no dwelling-chamber,
a synagogue that had no dwelling-house for
the hazan, a heathen temple that contained
no dwelling-house for its priests,20 horsestalls or storehouses in open fields, to which
dwelling chambers are not attached, a pit, a
ditch, a cave, a wall or a dove-cote in a field,
and a house in a ship.22 All these are not
included in the Sabbath boundary of a
town.23 At all events It was here taught: A
sepulchral monument that was broken on
two sides, the gap extending from one end to
the other. Does not this refer to a case where
there was a roof on top?24 No, it may be a
case where there was no roof on top. Of what
use is a house on a sea island?
R. Papa replied: The reference here is to a
house into which a ship's tackle is moved. But
is not a cave included in the Sabbath
boundary of a town? Did not R. Hiyya in fact
teach: A cave is included in the Sabbath
boundary of a town?
Abaye replied: He referred to a cave at the
entrance of which was a built structure.
Might not then its inclusion be inferred solely
on the ground of the structure? The
ruling25 was required only in a case where the
cave supplemented the prescribed size.26
R. Huna ruled: For those who dwell in huts27
the Sabbath limits are measured from the
very doors of their huts.28
R. Hisda raised an objection: And they
pitched by the Jordan, from Bethyeshimoth,29 in connection with which
Rabbah b. Bar Hana30 stated: I myself saw
the place and it measured three parasangs by
three.31 Now was it not taught: When they
attended to their needs they turned neither
front nor sideways but backwards?32
Raba answered him: You speak of the
divisions in the wilderness! Since about them
it is written: At the commandment of the

Lord they encamped and at the

commandment of the Lord they journeyed,33
they could well be regarded as constituting a
permanent settlement.34
R. Hinena b. R. Kahana ruled in the name of
R. Ashi: If among the huts there are three
courtyards of two houses35 each, all the
encampment assumes the characteristics of a
permanent settlement.36
Rab Judah citing Rab remarked: Dwellers in
huts and travelers in the desert lead a
miserable life,37 and their wives and children
are not really their own. So it was also
taught: Eliezer of Biria38 remarked: Those
who dwell in huts are like those who dwell in
graves, and concerning their daughters
Scripture says: Cursed be he that lieth with
any manner of beast.39 What is the reason?
Ulla explained: Because they have no bath
houses;40 and R. Johanan explained: Because
they [allow each other to] perceive the times
of their ritual immersion.41 What is the
practical difference between them?42 The
case where a river is near the house.43
R. Huna said: No scholar44 should dwell in a
town where vegetables are unobtainable. This
then implies that vegetables are wholesome,
but was it not taught: Three kinds of food
increase one's excrements, bend one's stature
and take away a five hundredth part of the
human eyesight, viz.
(1) Its Sabbath limit being measured from the
outward boundary of that karpaf.
(2) Lit., they (sc. the Rabbis who originally
instituted the law of karpaf) said only.
(3) That were adjacent to one another and that, on
account of the karpafs, joined to form one town
(cf. supra, p. 387, n. 13 and the discussion infra
57bf).
(4) As two sections of one town could not in this
respect be subject to greater restrictions than two
independent towns that are adjacent to one
another, what need was there for R. Huna's ruling
in respect of one town that was only severed in two
on account of a breach?
(5) A town severed by a breach in two.
(6) Before the breach was made.
(7) Lit., it had a side of permissibility.

15

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(8) That of two towns that were never before
combined to form one permitted domain.
(9) A town severed by a breach in two.
(10) Since originally, when the area of the gap was
occupied by houses, the inhabitants in either
section did not have the use of even one karpaf.
(11) Where the distance between the two ends of
the bow is less than four thousand cubits, in which
case it was laid down supra that the Sabbath limit
is measured from an imaginary line joining the
two ends.
(12) Bomb. ed. omits Rabbah b.
(13) There must be no more than a Sabbath limit
between any of the houses in the arch and the
imaginary bow-string.
(14) However great the perpendicular distance
between the imaginary bow-string and the arch.
(15) To the ends of the arch.
(16) Without touching the empty space between
the cord and the arch. As in this manner it is
possible for any townsman to pass from one end of
the bow-shaped town to the other end and then to
proceed also along the imaginary cord that joins
these ends, the entire area enclosed by the arc and
cord is deemed to be occupied by houses and
courtyards.
(17) If there was a roof on them they would be
regarded as a house and would in any case be
included in the town boundary in accordance with
a previous ruling in our Mishnah.
(18) Such a monument is usually provided with a
dwelling-chamber for its watchman. It has,
therefore, the status of a dwelling-house even
though no one lives in it.
(19) beadle, sexton, superintendent. In
modern Hebrew, synagogue reader, precentor.
(20) Or attendants, .
(21) Within seventy and two thirds cubits from the
town.
(22) That was not stationary, but moved
sometimes within and sometimes without seventy
and two thirds cubits from the town.
(23) Tosef. Er. IV.
(24) Which allows that two walls with a roof on
top are not regarded as a ruin that is included in
the Sabbath boundary of a town.
(25) Of R. Hiyya.
(26) Of four cubits by four. In the absence of such
a ruling it might have been presumed that, as the
structure was less than the minimum size
prescribed, neither it nor the cave may be
included in the Sabbath boundary of the town.
(27) , frail cone-shaped structures of reeds or
branches of trees.
(28) Sc. even if a camp consisted of hundreds of
such frail huts it does not assume the character of
a town the residents of which may freely move
within it (however large its area) and two
thousand cubits beyond it in all directions. Each
hut is regarded as a single unit.

(29) Num. XXXIII, 49, referring to the Israelites

camp in the wilderness.
(30) Cur. edd. in parenthesis in the name of R.
Johanan.
(31) Which establishes the fact that the Israelites
camp in the wilderness occupied an area of three
parasangs by three.
(32) Sc. behind the rear of the camp. An Israelite
occupying a hut or a tent in the front lines of the
camp had consequently to walk for the purpose a
distance of three parasangs. How since this long
walk, far exceeding a Sabbath limit, was
permitted, it follows that an encampment
consisting of huts also assumes the character of a
town. An objection against R. Huna.
(33) Hum. IX, 18. The order in M.T. is reversed:
At the commandment... journeyed... encamped.
(34) In consequence of which they were well
entitled to the privileges of a town.
(35) Of stone or wood.
(36) Cf. infra 59b.
(37) Lit., their life is no life.
(38) [Probably identical with Bertotha in Upper
Galilee, v. Aboth, Sonc. ed., p. 31 n. 4 and
Horowitz, op. cit. p. 175].
(39) Deut. XXVII, 21.
(40) When the men leave their homes to bathe in a
distant place the women remaining behind are
exposed to the temptations of the unscrupulous.
(41) Depraved men are thus in a position to follow
the women when they leave the camp for their
ritual bathing.
(42) Ulla and R. Johanan.
(43) Ritual immersion can well be performed in
the river and the women are under no necessity to
go far from their homes. The men, however,
would still be leaving their homes in quest of a
warm bath. Ulla's reason is, therefore, applicable
in such a case also while that of R. Johanan does
not apply.
(44) Talmid hakham, v. Glos.

Eruvin 56a
black bread,1 new beer and vegetables?2
This is no difficulty, one [statement referring]
to garlic and leek while the other [refers] to
other vegetables; as it was taught: Garlic is a
vegetable, leek is a semi-vegetable;3 if radish
appears a life-giving drug has appeared. Was
it not, however, taught: If radish appears a
drug of death has appeared? This is no
contradiction, the latter might deal with the
leaves while the former with the roots, or the
latter might refer to the summer while the
former might refer to the winter.

16

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Rab Judah citing Rab said: In a town which
abounds with ascents and descents men and
beasts die in the prime of their lives.4 Die!
Can one really think so? Rather say: They
age in the prime of life.
R. Huna son of R. Joshua remarked: The
crags between Be Bari and Be Narash have
made me old.5
Our Rabbis taught: If a town is to be
squared6 the sides of the square must be
made to correspond to the four directions of
the world: Its northern side, [for instance,]
must correspond7 to the North, and its
southern side to the South; and your guiding
marks8 are the Great Rear9 in the North and
the Scorpion in the South.
R. Jose said: If one10 does not know how to
square a town so as to make it correspond
with the directions of the world, one may
square it in accordance with the circuit of the
sun. How? The direction in which on a
long clay the sun rises11 and sets12 is the
northern direction.13 The direction in which
on a short day the sun rises11 and sets12 is the
southern direction.14 At the vernal and
autumnal equinoxes15 the sun rises in the
middle point of the East and sets in the
middle point of the West,16 as it is said in
Scripture: It goeth along17 the south, and
turneth about the18 north;19 It goeth along
the south during the day and turneth about
the north20 during the night. The wind
turneth, turneth about moveth21 refers to the
eastern horizon and the western horizon
along which the sun sometimes moves22 and
sometimes turns about.20
R. Mesharsheya stated: These rules23 should
be disregarded for it was taught: The sun has
never exactly risen in the North East and set
in the North West, nor has it ever risen
precisely in the South East and set in the
South West.
Samuel stated: Thee vernal equinox occurs
only at the beginning of one of the four
quarters of the day24 viz., either at the

beginning of the day or at the beginning of

the night or at midday or at midnight.25 The
summer solstice only occurs either at the end
of one and a half, or at the end of seven and a
half hours of the day or the night.26 The
autumnal equinox only occurs at the end of
three, or nine hours of the day or the night,27
and the winter solstice only occurs at the end
of four and a half, or ten and a half hours of
the day or the night.28 The duration of a
season of the year29 is no longer than ninetyone days and seven and a half hours; and the
beginning of one season is removed from that
of the other by no more than one half of a
planetary hour.30
Samuel further stated: The vernal equinox
never begins under Jupiter31 but it breaks the
trees, nor does the winter solstice begin under
Jupiter but it dries up the seed. This,
however, is the case only when the new moon
occurred in the moon-hour or in the Jupiterhour.31
(1) panis cibarius.
(2) Pes. 42a.
(3) Which proves that garlic and leek may be
described as vegetables.
(4) Lit., in the half of their days.
(5) [Town south of Sura situated on a mountain
slope on the east bank of the Euphrates, v.
Obermeyer p. 308].
(6) Sc. if for the purpose of measuring its Sabbath
limits its irregular boundary lines are extended to
form an imaginary square (cf. supra 55a).
(7) Lit., gives.
(8) In ascertaining the directions.
(9) , lit., wagon.
(10) Being unable to identify either of the two
constellations.
(11) At one end.
(12) At the other end.
(13) Lit., face of the North.
(14) At the summer solstice the sun appears to rise
in N.E. to move along E., S., and W. and to set
N.W., thus rising and setting in the North. As the
days shorten and the nights lengthen the circuit of
the sun appears steadily to diminish and the points
of sunrise and sunset appear to move day after
day from N.E. to E. and from N.W. to W.
respectively (the autumnal equinox, when days
and nights are equal) and then to S.E. and S.W.
respectively (the winter solstice when the days are
shortest and the nights longest). On the shortest
day, therefore, the sun appears to rise in S.E., to

17

ERUVIN 53a-79a
move only along S., and to set in S.W., thus rising
and setting in the South.
(15) Lit., the circuit of Nisan (v. Glos.) and the
circuit of Tishri (v. Glos.).
(16) As shown supra p. 392, n. 12.
(17) E.V. towards.
(18) E.V. unto the.
(19) Eccl. I, 6.
(20) Sc. hidden from view as if it turned about
behind the North.
(21) Ibid. E.V., whirleth about continually.
(22) Sc. is seen moving in the day time.
(23) On the points of sunrise and sunset.
(24) Sc. the solar day of twenty-four hours, which
includes both day and night.
(25) The year consists of three hundred and sixtyfive days and six hours approx., representing fiftytwo weeks and one and a quarter solar day's. The
first vernal equinox which, according to tradition,
occurred on the first of Nisan, which was then a
Wednesday at the beginning of the first quarter of
the solar day, i.e., at the beginning of the night
(solar days in the Heb. calendar beginning with
nightfall) was consequently followed in the second
year by a vernal equinox that began at the
beginning of a second quarter of the solar day
which was the midnight of Thursday (the solar
day again beginning as stated supra at nightfall).
In the third year the equinox began at the
beginning of a third quarter of the solar day,
which was the beginning of the day of Friday. In
the fourth year it began at the beginning of the
fourth quarter of the solar clay which was
midday of Saturday. The vernal equinox thus
begins at a different quarter of the solar day in the
course of every four years.
(26) The period intervening between an equinox
and the following solstice and between a solstice
and the following equinox is, as stated infra,
ninety-one days and seven and a half hours
approx., representing thirteen weeks and seven
and a half hours. When the first vernal equinox
occurred at the beginning of a Wednesday (cf.
prev. n.) the following summer solstice must have
occurred thirteen weeks later at the end of seven
and a half hours after the beginning of the night
belonging to that Wednesday. When the second
vernal equinox occurred at the midnight of
Thursday the summer solstice must have occurred
thirteen weeks later at the end of one and a half
hours after the beginning of the day also a
Thursday. Since the third vernal equinox
occurred on a Friday at the beginning of the day
the following solstice must have occurred thirteen
weeks later at the end of seven and a half hours of
the day also a Friday. Finally when the fourth
vernal equinox occurred at midday on Saturday,
the following solstice must have occurred at the
end of one and a half hours of the night of the
Sunday thirteen weeks later.

(27) This is obtained by dropping the thirteen

complete weeks (cf. prev. n.) which do not affect
the weekday or the hour, and by adding the seven
and a half hours to the respective summer solstices
(cf. prev. nn.).
(28) These calculations are arrived at by dropping
the weeks and adding the hours (cf. prev. n.) to the
respective times of the autumnal equinoxes, the
same process as in the previous cases being
repeated every four years.
(29) I.e., the lapse of time between an equinox and
a solstice that follows it, and between a solstice
and an equinox that follows it.
(30) Every hour of the day is assumed to be
governed by the sun, the moon or one of the
undermentioned planets in the following order:
Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun and
Venus. It follows that every eighth hour is under
the influence of the same heavenly body. Since, for
instance, Mercury is in ascendancy in the first
hour of the first day of the week, it is also in
ascendancy in the eighth, the fifteenth and the
twenty-second hour and so on ad infinitum.
Similarly Venus who is in ascendancy in the
seventh hour of the first day of the week is also in
ascendancy in the fourteenth and the twenty-first
hour, etc. Now since the beginning of one season is
removed from that of the next season (as stated
supra) by thirteen weeks and seven and a half
hours and since in every week (consisting of 7 X 24
hours) the same relative order and succession of
the heavenly bodies is invariably repeated, the
weeks may be entirely disregarded in the
calculations that determine what heavenly body
would exercise its influence at the beginning of a
season. The seven and a half hours only having to
be taken into consideration, and the number of
heavenly bodies concerned being seven, it follows
that the same heavenly body that was in
ascendancy at the beginning of a season is again in
ascendancy during the last half hour of that
season and during the first half hour of the season
that follows. Every season thus begins one half of
a planetary hour later than the preceding one.
(31) Sc. the hour under the influence of this planet
(cf. prev. n.).

Eruvin 56b
Our Rabbis taught: If [a circular] town is to
be [circumscribed by a] square1 [the sides
must be] drawn in the shape of a square
tablet. The Sabbath limits also are then
drawn in the shape of a square tablet.2 When
the measurements1 are taken one should not
measure the two thousand cubits3 from the
middle point of the town corner,4 because,
thereby, one loses the corners.5 One should

18

ERUVIN 53a-79a
rather imagine6 that a square tablet of the
size of two thousand cubits by two thousand
cubits is applied to each corner diagonally,7
so that the town gains thereby four hundred
cubits in each corner,8 the Sabbath limits
gain eight hundred cubits in each corner,9
while the town and the Sabbath limits
together gain twelve hundred cubits10 in each
corner.11 This12 is possible, Abaye explained.
in a town of the size of two thousand by two
thousand cubits.13
It was taught: R. Eliezer son of R. Jose
stated: The limit of the allotted land beyond
the confines of the levitical cities14 was two
thousand cubits.15 Deducting from these16 an
open space of one thousand cubits,17 such
open space would represent a quarter of the
entire area18 the remainder of which
consisted of fields and vineyards.19 Whence is
this20 deduced?
Raba replied: From Scripture which says.
[And the open land,..] from the wall of the
city and outward a thousand cubits round
about,21 the Torah has thus enjoined,
Surround the city by an open space of one
thousand cubits. Such an open space [it was
said] would represent a quarter of the entire
area A quarter! Is it not in fact one [in
the neighborhood] of a half?22
Raba replied: The surveyor Bar Adda23
explained this to me. Such a proportion is
possible in the case of a town whose area is
two thousand by two thousand cubits. For
what is the area of its limits?24 Sixteen
[million square cubits].25 What is the area of
the corners?26 Also sixteen [million square
cubits].27 Deducting [for the open spaces]
eight [million square cubits]28 front the
limits, and four [million square cubits]29 from
the corners, to what area would this space
amount? To one of twelve [million square
cubits].30 Would then such an open space
represent a quarter? Is it not in fact more
than a third of the entire area?31 Take the
four [million square cubits] of the town area
itself and add to them.32 Does not this,
however, still amount to a third?33 Do you

imagine that a quadrilateral town was spoken

off? No, a circular town was meant. For by
how much does the area of a square exceed
that of a circle? By one quarter
[approximately] Deduct a quarter from
the measurements given and there would
remain nine [million square cubits];34 and
nine [million] represents one quarter of thirty
six [million].35
Abaye said: This36 is also possible in the case
of a town that has an area of a thousand by a
thousand cubits For what are its limits?37
Eight [million square cubits].38 What is the
area of the corners? Sixteen [million square
cubits].39
(1) In connection with the calculations of the
permitted Sabbath limits around it.
(2) This is explained infra.
(3) The permitted distance in all directions from
the imaginary square round the town.
(4) I.e., extending the diagonals of the imaginary
square to the length of two thousand cubits and
joining them so as to form a larger square.
(5) As will be shown presently.
(6) Lit., bring.
(7) One extremity of the diagonal of the imaginary
tablet touching in turn each of the four corners of
the imaginary square, the diagonal of the latter
forming a straight line with that of the former.
(8) Lit., towards here and... towards here. The
town spoken of here (as stated by Abaye infra) is
one that is circular in shape and the diameter of
which is two thousand cubits. By enclosing it in an
imaginary square the diagonal of which (on the
rule that the diagonal of a square exceeds its side
by two fifths approx.) the town is extended in each
of its four corners by ((2000 X 2/5)/2) = 4000/10 =
400 cubits (cf. foll. n.).
(9) A line of two thousand cubits is by two fifths
(cf. prev. n.), less than the diagonal of a two
thousand cubits square. A square tablet of the
size of two thousand cubits by two thousand cubits
applied to each corner diagonally would
consequently add to each corner two thousand
cubits plus (2000 x 2)/5 = 800 cubits.
(10) I.e., the total of 400 and 800 cubits in each of
the inner and outer corners respectively.
(11) Tosef. Er. IV.
(12) The various measurements and gains just
described.
(13) Cf. preceding notes.
(14) In addition to the cities themselves the Levites
were allowed stretches of land around them for
use as open spaces, fields and vineyards as will be
specified below.

19

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(15) In an outward direction round each city.
(16) The 2000 cubits mentioned.
(17) Immediately behind and around each city.
(18) This will be explained presently.
(19) Tosaf. Ar. ad fin., Sotah 27b.
(20) That a strip of one thousand cubits around
each levitical city must be reserved as an open
space.
(21) Num. XXXV, 4, dealing with the cities of the
Levites.
(22) One thousand cubits of open space in every
two thousand cubits allowed: 1000/2000 = 1/2. The
actual area of the open space on the present
assumption would, of course, be less than a half of
the total area, since an inner belt of the width of a
thousand cubits is smaller in area than one of
equal width around it.
(23) Aliter: The son of the surveyor Adda. Aliter:
Raba b. Adda replied: A surveyor.
(24) Sc. the stretch of land two thousand cubits in
width around it.
(25) 2000 by 2000 cubits on each of its four sides:
2000 X 2000 X 4 = 16,000,000 square cubits.
(26) The corner spaces between the limits just
described.
(27) The area of each corner being 2000 X 2000
square cubits the total area of the four corners is
2000 X 2000 X 4 = 16,000,000 square cubits.
(28) Since the Torah enjoined to surround the
whole city with a strip of one thousand cubits
wide, one 1000 by 2000 cubits on each of the four
sides 2,000,000 X 4 = 8,000,000 sq. cubits.
(29) One 1000 by 1000 cubits in each of the four
corners = 1,000,000 X 4 = 4,000,000 sq. cubits.
(30) 8,000,000 sq. cubits and 4,000,000 sq. cubits
(cf. prev. two nn.) amount to 12,000,000 sq. cubits.
(31) 12,000,000/32,000,000 being equal to 3/8.
(32) To the 32,000,000. This brings the total up to
36,000,000.
(33) 12,000,000/36,000,000 = 1/3. Why then was it
described as a quarter?
(34) The city that was originally assumed to have
an area of 2,000 X 2,000 = 4,000,000 sq. cubits,
being circular in shape has only an area of
4,000,000 X 3/4 = 3,000,000 sq. cubits approx. The
belt of open spaces around it, which was originally
assumed to have an area of 12,000,000 sq. cubits
would similarly amount to 4,000 (city, 2,000, and
open spaces on two of its sides 2,000) by 4,000 X
3/4 (difference between area of sq. and circle)
3,000,000 approx. (area of circular city). 4,000 X
4,000 X 3/4 3,000,000 = 12,000,000 3,000,000
= 9,000.000 sq. cubits.
(35) The latter figure represents the total area in
sq. cubits of the city and the entire stretch of open
spaces, fields and vineyards allowed to each
levitical city. The shape of the city does not affect
this outer area which always extends to a
perpendicular distance of 2,000 cubits from it in
all directions of the city.

(36) That the open space shall represent a quarter

of the area of the land allowed around each city of
the Levites.
(37) The stretch of land allowed around it.
(38) Area of 1,000 by 2,000 cubits on each of its
four sides equal to 2,000,000 X 4 = 8,000,000 sq.
cubits.
(39) Each corner having an area of 2,000 by 2,000
sq. cubits the area of the four corners amounts to
2,000 X 2,000 X 4 = 16,000,000 sq. cubits.

Eruvin 57a
Deducting [for the open space] four [million
square cubits]1 from the limits and four
[million square cubits] from the corners,2 to
what area would this space amount? To one
of eight million square cubits. But is not such
an open space a third of the area?3 Do you
think that the reference is to a square town?
No, a circular town was spoken of. For by
how much does the area of a square exceed
that of a circle? By one quarter
approximately. Deduct a quarter from the
measurements given4 and there would remain
six [million square cubits];5 and six [million]
represent a quarter of twenty-four [million].6
Rabina explained: What is meant by a
quarter? A quarter of the area of the limits.7
R. Ashi explained: What is meant by a
quarter? A quarter of the area of the
corners.8
Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Is it not written in
Scripture: round about?9 By round
about the corners were meant For, if you
were not to admit this, would you also
contend that the expression. And10 dash the
blood round about against the altar,11 written
in connection with a burnt-offering, also
meant round about the very altar?12
Consequently you must admit that by round
about was meant round about the corners;
well then, here also by round about was
meant round about the corners.
Said R. Habibi13 of Hoza'ah14 to R. Ashi: Are
there not, however, the projections of the
corners?15 The reference is to a circular
city.16 Was it not, however, made square?17

20

ERUVIN 53a-79a
You might contend that it was said that we
imagine it to be a square18 but can you
contend that it was actually made square?19
Said R. Hanilai20 of Hoza'ah to R. Ashi:
Consider! By how much does the area of a
square exceed that of a circle? By a quarter
approximately. Are not then the so called
eight hundred21 only six hundred and sixtyseven minus a third?22 The other replied:
This23 applies only to a circle inscribed within
a square, but in the case of the diagonal of
a square24 more must be added; for a Master
stated: Every cubit in the side of a square
corresponds to one and two fifths of a cubit
in its diagonal.25
MISHNAH. A KARPAF26 IS ALLOWED FOR
EVERY TOWN;27 SO R. MEIR, BUT THE
SAGES RULED: [THE LAW OF] KARPAF27
WAS INSTITUTED ONLY BETWEEN TWO
TOWNS28 SO THAT BY ADDING TO EACH
ONE29 A STRETCH OF LAND OF SEVENTY
AND A FRACTION30 THE KARPAF
COMBINES THE TWO TOWNS INTO ONE.28
SO ALSO WHERE THREE VILLAGES ARE
ARRANGED IN THE SHAPE OF A
TRIANGLE,28 IF BETWEEN THE TWO OUTER
ONES THERE WAS A DISTANCE OF A
HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE AND A THIRD
CUBITS, THE MIDDLE ONE CAUSES ALL
THE THREE OF THEM TO BE REGARDED AS
ONE.28
GEMARA. Whence is this31 inferred?
Raba replied: From Scripture which says:
From the wall of the city and outward,32 the
Torah having thereby enjoined: Allow an
outward area,33 and then begin your
measuring.34
BUT THE SAGES RULED... WAS
INSTITUTED ONLY, etc. It was stated: R.
Huna laid down: A karpaf is allowed for each
town. Hiyya b. Rab laid down: Only one
karpaf is allowed for both towns. We
learned: BUT THE SAGES RULED: [THE
LAW OF] KARPAF WAS INSTITUTED
ONLY BETWEEN TWO TOWNS. Is not
this35 an objection against R. Huna?

R. Huna can answer you: What is meant by

KARPAF?35 The law of karpaf, but in fact
a karpaf is allowed for each town. This may
also be supported by reason, since in the final
clause it was stated: SO THAT BY ADDING
TO EACH ONE A STRETCH OF LAND OF
SEVENTY AND A FRACTION CUBITS
THE KARPAF COMBINES THE TWO
TOWNS INTO ONE. This is conclusive.
Must it be said that this36 presents an
objection against Hiyya b. Rab?37
Hiyya b. Rab can answer you:
(1) One thousand by one thousand sq. cubits on
each of the four sides of the city amount to four
million sq. cubits, cf. supra p. 398, n. 2.
(2) Cf. loc. cit. n. 3.
(3) Which, as has just been shown, amounted to
8,000,000 + 16,000,000 = 24,000,000 sq. cubits;
8,000,000/24,000,000 = 1/3.
(4) Sc. from the strip of open space around the
town which, if square shaped, contains an area of
eight million sq. cubits.
(5) The area of the city (1,000 X 1,000 sq. cubits)
plus the area of the open space (a strip of a
thousand cubits in width on the four sides of the
town) amounts to 3,000 X 3,000 = 9,000,000 sq.
cubits, when the city, and the open space around it
are square shaped. When they are circular the
total of their area amounts to 9,000,000 X 1/4 sq.
cubits. The area of the open space alone amounts,
therefore, to 9,000,000 X 3/4 1,000,000 X 3/4
(area of circular city) = 3/4 (9,000,000
1,000,000) = 3/4 x 8,000,000 = 6,000,000 sq. cubits.
(6) The latter figure representing the total area of
the limits of the land and the corners (v. supra 56b
ad fin) which, unlike the open space, are not
affected by the shape of the city.
(7) According to Rabina the reference is, as was
first assumed (cf. supra text and notes), to a city
whose area was 2,000 by 2,000 sq. cubits, and the
area of whose limits, (i.e., the strips of 2,000 cubits
perpendicular distance from its confines) plus the
area of the corners between them, is 2,000 X 2,000
X 8 = 32,000,000 sq. cubits, while the area of its
open spaces along the limits, amounts to 2,000 X
1,000
X
4=
8,000,000
sq.
cubits,
8,000,000/32,000,000 = 1/4 which is the quarter
spoken of. Rabina is of the opinion that no land
for the purpose of open space was set aside in the
corners. V. Tosaf. s.v. .
(8) No open space being allowed along the limits.
Cf. previous note, the Tosaf. cited and Rashi s.v.
a.l. The area of each corner being 4,000,000
sq. cubits and the area of the open space in each

21

ERUVIN 53a-79a
corner being 1,000,000 sq. cubits the latter area
equals (1,000,000/4,000,000 =) 1/4 a quarter of
that of the former in each corner. The total area of
the corners equals 4 X 4,000,000 while the total
area of open spaces in these corners equals 4 X
1,000,000 the proportion of the latter to the
former is, therefore, 4 X 1,000,000/4 X 4,000,000 =
1/4 which is also a quarter.
(9) Num. XXXV, 4. How then could it be
maintained that the open spaces were restricted
(cf. prev. n.) to the corners only?
(10) The sons of Aaron is enclosed in cur. edd. in
parenthesis.
(11) Lev. I. 5.
(12) But this, surely, is contrary to the adopted
practice of sprinkling the blood round the corners
of the altar only.
(13) MS.M Aha; Rashi (s.v. a.l.) Habiba.
(14) The modern Khuzistan.
(15) Which reduce the area of the open spaces
which, in consequence, would represent less than a
quarter of the corners.
(16) A circle has no projecting corners.
(17) As stated supra.
(18) For the purpose of extending its Sabbath
limits or the land around it in favor of the Levites.
(19) Obviously not. An imaginary square causes
no actual reduction.
(20) MS.M., Habi; Bomb. ed. Hinai.
(21) Supra 56b; The Sabbath limits gain eight
hundred cubits by the application to the corners
of the diagonal of the tablet of two thousand cubits
in length.
(22) If the difference between a square and a circle
is a quarter of the former it is also (since the
proportion of the two figures is 3:4) a third of the
latter. The difference consequently between a line
of two thousand cubits (which may be regarded as
the diameter of a circle) and the diagonal of a
square whose sides measure two thousand cubits
should be a third of two thousand 2000/3 = 666 2/3
or 667 1/3.
(23) That the approximate difference between the
area of a square and that of a circle is a quarter of
the former or a third of the latter.
(24) In relation to any of its sides.
(25) A side of the square spoken of being equal to
2,000 cubits, the diagonal of such a square must be
equal to 2,000 X 7/5 cubits. The gain, therefore, is
2,000 X 7/5 2,000 = 2,000 X 2/5 = 400 X 2,000
cubits.
(26) V. Glos., a stretch of land extending to
seventy and two thirds cubits away from the town.
(27) Sc. the Sabbath limits begin at such a distance
from the town and not from the town boundary.
(28) This is explained in the Gemara infra.
(29) Or EITHER (v. Gemara infra). Lit., if
there is to this... and if etc,
(30) I.e., two thirds of a cubit.
(31) That a karpaf is allowed for every town.

(32) Num. XXXV, 4, emphasis on outward .

(33) , Sc. KARPAF.
(34) Of the Sabbath limit.
(35) The use of KARPAF in the sing.
(36) The final clause just cited, according to which
a karpaf is allowed to each town.
(37) Who allows only one karpaf for both towns.

Eruvin 57b
This1 is the view of2 R. Meir.3 But if this is the
view of R. Meir [the objection arises:] Was it
not already enunciated in the first clause: A
KARPAF IS ALLOWED FOR EVERY
TOWN; SO R. MEIR? [Both were]
required. For if [the law were to be derived]
from the former only it might have been
presumed that one karpaf is allowed for one
town and one is also allowed for two towns,4
hence we were informed5 that for two towns
two karpafs are allowed. And if we had been
informed of the latter only it might have been
assumed [that R. Meir's view6 applied to such
a case only] because [one karpaf is too]
cramped for the use of two towns, but not in
the former case7 where the space is not too
cramped.8 [Hence both were] required.
We learned: SO ALSO WHERE THREE
VILLAGES ARE ARRANGED IN THE
SHAPE OF A TRIANGLE, IF BETWEEN
THE TWO OUTER ONES THERE WAS A
DISTANCE OF A HUNDRED AND
FORTY-ONE AND A THIRD CUBITS, THE
MIDDLE ONE CAUSES ALL THE THREE
OF THEM TO BE REGARDED AS ONE.
The reason then9 is because there was one in
the middle, but if there had been none in the
middle the outer two villages would not have
been combined. Is not this10 an objection
against R. Huna?11
R. Huna can answer you: Surely, in
connection with this ruling it was stated:
Rabbah12 in the name of R. Idi who had it
from R. Hanina explained: There is no need
for the villages to be arranged in the shape of
an equilateral13 triangle14 but that if on
observation it is found that with the middle
one placed between the other two they would
form a triangle, and there would be between

22

ERUVIN 53a-79a
the one and the other15 a distance of no more
than a hundred and forty-one and a third
cubits16 the middle one causes all the three of
them, to be regarded as one.17
Said Raba to Abaye: What [maximum
distance] is allowed between an outer village
and the middle one?18 Two thousand
cubits,19 the other replied. But did you not
say, the former asked: that logical
reasoning is in agreement with Raba the son
of Rabbah son of R. Huna who ruled that a
perpendicular distance of more than two
thousand cubits was allowed?20 What a
comparison!21 There, houses are in
existence,22 but here there are no houses.23
Raba further asked Abaye: What [maximum
distance] is allowed between the two outer
ones? What [distance] is allowed! What
difference does this make in view of the
ruling that if... with the middle one placed
between the other two there remains
between them24 a distance of no more than a
hundred and forty-one and a third cubits
they are all regarded as one?25 Even if
they26 are four thousand cubits distant from
one another? Yes, the other replied. But
did not R. Huna lay down: If a town is
shaped like a bow then if the distance
between its two ends is less than four
thousand cubits the Sabbath limits are
measured from the bow string, otherwise
measuring must begin from the arch?27
There, the other replied. you cannot say
that the distance28 is filled up29 but here you
can well say so.30
Said R. Safra to Raba: Behold the people of
Ktesifon for whom we measure the Sabbath
limits from the further side of Ardashir and
the people of Ardashir for whom we measure
the Sabbath limit from the further side of
Ktesifon;31 does not the Tigris32 in fact cut
between them a gap wider than a hundred
and forty-one and a third cubits?33 The
other thereupon went out and showed him
the flanks of a wall that projected seventy
and two thirds34 cubits across the Tigris.35

MISHNAH. SABBATH LIMITS MAY BE

MEASURED ONLY WITH A ROPE OF THE
LENGTH OF FIFTY CUBITS NEITHER LESS
NOR MORE;36 AND A MAN MAY MEASURE
ONLY WHILE HOLDING THE END OF THE
ROPE ON A LEVEL WITH HIS HEART.37 IF IN
THE COURSE OF MEASURING THE
SURVEYOR REACHED A GLEN OR A
FALLEN WALL38 HE SPANS IT39 AND
RESUMES40 HIS MEASURING; IF HE
REACHED A HILL HE SPANS IT AND
RESUMES HIS MEASURING;
(1) The final clause just cited.
(2) Lit., this according to whom?
(3) It is not the conclusion of the ruling of the
Sages, but a continuation of R. Meir's ruling with
which our Mishnah began.
(4) The purpose of the ruling being that every
town shall have a karpaf but not one exclusively
for itself.
(5) By the final clause.
(6) That karpafs are at all allowed.
(7) One town surrounded by open country.
(8) In such a case, it might have been assumed, R.
Meir allows no karpaf at all.
(9) Why the two outer villages may be regarded as
one despite the distance of a hundred and fortyone and a third cubits intervening.
(10) The requirement of a third village between
the other two.
(11) Who allowed a karpaf for every town (or
village) and according to whom the two outer
villages would have been combined into one, even
in the absence of the third village, owing to the
fact that no more than the space of two karpafs (2
X 70 2/3 = 141 1/3 cubits) intervened between
them.
(12) Var. lec. Raba, It. Adda.
(13) Lit., actually.
(14) Sc. that the distance between any two of
them shall be no greater than a hundred and
forty-one and a third cubits.
(15) l.e., the middle village and any of the other
two.
(16) A distance that is equal to that of two karpafs
on either side of the middle village.
(17) Even though the distance between the two
outer ones is much greater than a hundred and
forty-one and a third cubits.
(18) If it is desired that the middle one shall cause
ALL THE THREE OF THEM TO BE
REGARDED AS ONE.
(19) A Sabbath limit. Since it is permitted to walk
without an erub between the middle one and
either of the others it is also permitted to regard
the former as placed between the latter.

23

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(20) Between the middle point of the bow-string
and the arch, in the case of a town that was built
in the shape of a bow (supra 55b).
(21) Lit., thus now.
(22) Throughout the area of the arch to either end
of the imaginary string, so that it is possible to
reach the string via the bow.
(23) Between the middle village and the others,
and all the distance between them must be
traversed across open country.
(24) I.e., , the confines on either side of the middle
one and each of the others.
(25) Which shows that the distance between the
outer ones subject to this reservation is of no
consequence.
(26) The outer ones.
(27) Supra 55a q.v. notes.
(28) Lit., there is no (reason) to say: Fill, between
the houses at the two ends of the bow.
(29) Since there is nothing wherewith to fill it.
(30) Lit., there is (reason) to say: Fill, by
regarding the third village as breaking up the
distance and reducing it on either side.
(31) [Two neighboring places, the former on the
eastern and the latter on the western bank of the
Tigris, v. Obermeyer pp. 164ff.] Thus assuming
that the two towns are combined into one.
(32) In its course between the two towns.
(33) How then could the two towns be regarded as
one?
(34) Lit., remnants.
(35) And thus reduced the gap between the
buildings of the two towns to less than a hundred
and forty one and a third cubits.
(36) The reason follows in the Gemara.
(37) Sc. each of the two surveyors must hold his
end of the measuring rope at a level with his heart,
in order to ensure correctness and in the process
of measuring. Correctness is impossible where one
end of the rope is held at one level and the other
end at a higher or lower level, since the distance
measured would in this case be less than the full
length of the rope.
(38) That collapsed in a heap and across which
people pass.
(39) [I.e., he takes into consideration only the
horizontal span provided it is not more than fifty
cubits]. Sc. one man stands on its near side while
another stands on its far side, each of them
holding one end of the rope which is thus
stretched across the glen or the collapsed wall. By
this method of measuring one gains for the
Sabbath limit the distances taken up by the slopes.
(40) This refers to a glen, for instance, that was
wider than fifty cubits (cf. n. 7) in a part that
faced the town and narrower than fifty cubits in
another part that was removed from the town
sideways. The surveyor, when reaching the edge of
the glen, is in such circumstances allowed to make
a detour to the narrower section of the glen, to

span it there with the rope, and to continue his

measuring until the rope is perpendicular to the
line drawn from the point furthest from the town
on the far side of the glen. He then RESUMES his
measuring from that point to the end of the
Sabbath limit.

Eruvin 58a
PROVIDED HE DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE
SABBATH LIMIT. IF HE IS UNABLE TO SPAN
IT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS R.
DOSTAI B. JANNAI STATED IN THE NAME
OF R. MEIR, I HAVE HEARD THAT HILLS
ARE TREATED AS THOUGH THEY WERE
PIERCED.1
GEMARA. Whence is this2 deduced? Rab
Judah citing Rab replied: From Scripture
which says. The length of the court shall be a
hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty by
fifty,3 the Torah having thus4 enjoined:
Measure with a rope of the length of fifty
cubits. But is not this text required for the
ordinance to take away fifty and to surround
with them the other fifty?5 If for that
purpose only,6 Scripture might have said
fifty, fifty why then did it say fifty by
fifty? Hence both may be deduced.7
NEITHER LESS NOR MORE. One taught:
Neither less because the measurements are
increased,8 nor more because they are
reduced.9
R. Assi10 ruled: One must measure only with
a rope of apeskima.11 What is the meaning of
apeskima? R. Abba replied: Nargila.
What is Nargila? - R. Jacob replied: A palmtree which has only one bast. Others read:
What is the meaning of apeskima? R.
Abba replied: Nargila; R. Jacob replied: A
palm-tree which has only one bast.
It was taught: R. Joshua b. Hananiah said:
You have nothing more suitable for
measuring than iron chains, but what can we
do in face of what the Torah12 said: With a
measuring line in his hand.13 Is it not,
however, written: And in the man's hand was
a measuring rod?14 That was used for
measuring the gates.

24

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Joseph learned: There are three kinds of
rope. Those made of megeg,15 of wicker and
of flax. The megeg rope16 was used for the
heifer;17 for we learned: They bound it with a
rope of megeg and put it on its pile.18 The
wicker rope was used in connection with the
test of a faithless wife;19 for we learned: And
after that he brings a wicker rope20 and binds
it above her breasts.21 The flax rope was used
for measuring purposes.
IF IN THE COURSE OF MEASURING
THE SURVEYOR REACHED. Since it was
stated: RESUMES HIS MEASURING it may
be inferred that if he is unable to span it22 he
proceeds to a position23 from where24 he is
able to do so and, after spanning it, he makes
the necessary observations25 [whereby he is
enabled to locate the point on the far side]26
that is in a straight line with his original line
of measuring27 and then he resumes [his
measurements in a straight line]
Thus we have here learnt what the Rabbis
have taught elsewhere: If in the course of
measuring the measuring rope reached a
glen, the surveyor may span it if he can do so
with a rope of fifty cubits, but if not, he
proceeds to a position23 from where24 he is
able to span it and, having spanned it, he
makes the necessary observations25 [whereby
he is enabled to locate the point on the far
sides that is in a straight line with his original
line of measuring] and then he resumes his
measuring. If the glen was a crooked one28 it
is pierced in an upward, as well as in a
downward direction.29 If it30 reached a wall
we do not say: Let the wall be bored
through;31 its thickness rather is estimated
and the measuring continues.32 Have we not,
however, learnt: HE SPANS IT AND
RESUMES HIS MEASURING?33 There34
it is a case of one that can be conveniently
used35 but here it is a case of one that cannot
conveniently be used.36
Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: This37 was
learned only in the case where a plumb line38
does not descend in a straight line39

(1) Supra 35b q.v. notes.

(2) That in measuring Sabbath limits only A
ROPE OF THE LENGTH OF FIFTY CUBITS
may be used.
(3) Ex. XXVII, 18. E.V. everywhere.
(4) By the phrase by fifty.
(5) Supra 23b q.v. notes.
(6) Lit., if so.
(7) The deduction supra (v. prev. n.) as well as the
ruling in our Mishnah.
(8) A shorter rope is likely to be stretched and
each unit of rope would consequently cover more
cubits of ground than the standard number it
represents. The Sabbath limits would in
consequence be greater than the permitted
distance.
(9) A longer rope cannot be so well stretched and
each unit of it would cover less ground than the
standard number it represents. This would result
in a loss in the Sabbath limits.
(10) Aruk, Ammi.
(11) One (as explained presently) made of the
fibers of a particular kind of palm-tree.
(12) The term is here used in its wider
signification which includes also the Prophetic
writings.
(13) Zech. II. 5.
(14) Ezek. XL, 5.
(15) A certain kind of reed. Aliter: Bast.
(16) Because it is not susceptible to levitical
uncleanness.
(17) The red heifer (cf. Num. XIX, 2ff) which had
to be prepared under conditions of strict levitical
cleanness.
(18) Parah III, 9.
(19) A sotah (v. Glos. and cf. Num. V, 12ff).
(20) Hebel ha-mizri, lit, an Egyptian rope. Aliter:
A common cord. Aliter: A rope of rushes.
(21) Sotah 7b. Cf. Sonc. ed., p. 31, n. 1f.
(22) The GLEN, the WALL or the HILL where,
for instance, the section that along the town is
wider than fifty cubits.
(23) Away from the town.
(24) The width across being less than fifty cubits.
(25) Lit., , and looks.
(26) Of the obstruction that could not be spanned.
(27) Cf. relevant notes on our Mishnah and first
diagram ibid. Lit., corresponding to his measure.
(28) I.e., its narrow section (not exceeding fifty
cubits) that could be spanned was not on that side
of the town from which the Sabbath limit was
being measured (v. Rashi).
(29) The method of piercing is described infra 58b.
(30) The measuring line.
(31) Sc. that poles towering above it shall be held
up on both its sides and the rope stretched from
one to the other (Tosaf. s.v. a.l.).
(32) Tosef. Er. IV.

25

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(33) Why then is a mere estimate allowed in this
case?
(34) In our Mishnah.
(35) One for instance that rises gently to a height
of ten handbreadths in all area of four cubits.
Hence it must either be spanned or pierced.
(36) A wall, for instance, that rose sharply in a
perpendicular direction. As its sides are of no use
for walking purposes they may be disregarded
and only the estimated thickness of the wall need
be included in the measurements.
(37) That the method of piercing is admissible.
(38) Suspended from the edge of the glen and
reaching the bed.
(39) Lit., corresponding to it. This is defined
infra 58b.

Eruvin 58b
but if it does descend in a straight line1 the
bottom of the glen is measured by the
ordinary method.2 What may be the depth of
a glen?3 R. Joseph replied: Two thousand
cubits.
Abaye raised an objection against him: [If a
glen was] a hundred cubits deep and fifty
cubits wide one may span it, otherwise one
may not! He holds the view of Others,4 it
having been taught: Others rule: Even
though a glen was two thousand cubits deep
but only fifty cubits wide one may span it.
Some there are who read: R. Joseph replied:
Even if it was deeper than two thousand
cubits. In agreement with whose view is this
ruling? Is it neither in agreement with that of
the first Tanna5 nor with that of the
Others?6 There7 it is a case where the
plumb line does not descend in a straight
line8 but here it is one where it does descend
in a straight line.9 Where the plumb line does
not descend in a straight line how much
[deviation]10 is allowed?
Abimi replied: Up to four cubits; and so
learned Rami b. Ezekiel: Up to four cubits.
IF HE REACHED A HILL HE SPANS IT
AND RESUMES HIS MEASURING. Raba
explained: This11 was learnt only in respect of
a hill that has a rise of ten handbreadths to a
gradient of four cubits,12 but a hill that has a

rise of ten handbreadths to five cubits must

be measured in the usual manner.13
R. Huna son of R. Nathan taught this14 in the
direction of leniency: Raba explained. This15
was learnt only in respect of a hill that has a
rise often handbreadths to a gradient of five
cubits,16 but a hill that has a rise of ten
handbreadths to a gradient of four cubits17
one need only estimate its base and proceed
with his measuring.
PROVIDED HE DOES NOT GO BEYOND
THE SABBATH LIMIT.18 What is the
reason? R. Kahana replied: This was
ordained as a preventive measure against the
possible assumption that the Sabbath limit
reached to that point.19
IF HE IS UNABLE TO SPAN IT. Our
Rabbis taught: How is the method of piercing
carried out? The man on the lower level
holds his end of the rope on a level with his
heart while the man on the higher level holds
his end on a level with his feet. Abaye stated:
We have it as a tradition that piercing may
be effected only with a rope of the length of
four cubits.
R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha
stated:20 The method of piercing must not be
employed in measurements in connection
with the broken-necked heifer21 nor in those
around the cities of refuge.21 because these
are ordinances of the Torah.22
MISHNAH. [THE SABBATH LIMIT OF A
TOWN] IS MEASURED ONLY ALONG THE
BEATEN TRACK.23 IF ONE EXTENDED THE
LIMIT AT ONE POINT MORE THAN AT
ANOTHER,24 THE EXTENDED LIMIT IS
OBSERVED.25 IF THERE WAS A GREATER
DISTANCE FOR ONE AND A LESSER
DISTANCE FOR ANOTHER,26 THE GREATER
DISTANCE IS OBSERVED. FURTHERMORE,
EVEN A BONDMAN AND EVEN A
BONDWOMAN ARE BELIEVED WHEN THEY
SAY, THUS FAR IS THE SABBATH LIMIT,
SINCE THE SAGES DID NOT ENACT THE

26

ERUVIN 53a-79a
LAW27 IN ORDER TO ADD RESTRICTIONS
BUT IN ORDER TO RELAX THEM.
(1) I.e., if the sides of the glen are practically
perpendicular (as will be defined infra) so that
they cannot be used at all for walking purposes.
(2) Lit., a proper measurement.
(3) That is spanned if it is not wider than fifty
cubits.
(4) With a capital O, sc. R. Meir (cf. Hor. 13b).
(5) Who limits the depth to one hundred cubits.
(6) R. Meir who allows a depth of two thousand
cubits but no more.
(7) The case in dispute between the first Tanna
and others.
(8) As the slopes of the glen, to a limited extent at
least, can be used for walking on, its depth was
restricted.
(9) The sides of the glen being absolutely
unsuitable for walking, its depth, however great, is
of no consequence.
(10) At the bed of the glen in relation to the edge
thereof.
(11) That the method of spanning or piercing is
allowed.
(12) V. Rashi a.I.
(13) Such a gentle slope is deemed to be on a par
with level ground which may not be measured
either by spanning or by
piercing.
(14) Raba's view just enunciated.
(15) That the method of spanning or piercing is
allowed.
(16) Since it is not level ground one of the methods
of spanning or piercing may be adopted.
(17) Being too steep and hardly suitable for
walking.
(18) Cf. relevant notes in our Mishnah, and
diagram ibid.
(19) Beyond the permitted limit. In the absence of
the preventive measure people might desecrate the
Sabbath by walking as far as that point, believing
it to be within the Sabbath limit of their town.
(20) Cur. edd. in parenthesis, we have a
tradition.
(21) Supra 35b q.v. notes.
(22) Which require exact measurements. No
estimates or approximate calculations being
allowed, slopes of hills or dales must be carefully
measured cubit by cubit as level ground.
(23) Reading , the noun being derived
from rt. to strike (R. Han. Cf. Tosaf. s.v.
a.l.). Var. lec. expert, skilled surveyor (cf.
Rashi s.v. "a.l.).
(24) Lit., and reduced towards another place.
(25) Lit., hear, sc. the lesser limit is extended to
the length of the greater one. As the measuring
rope must be stretched to its utmost capacity so as
to cover the maximum length possible it is

assumed that the deficiency in the lesser limit is

due to all insufficient stretching of the rope.
(26) This is explained in the Gemara infra.
(27) Of Sabbath limits.

Eruvin 59a
GEMARA. Is1 THE EXTENDED LIMIT only
observed2 but not the reduced limit?3
Read: Even as far as the extended limit.4
IF THERE WAS A GREATER DISTANCE
FOR ONE AND A LESSER DISTANCE
FOR ANOTHER, etc. What need again was
there for this rule? Is it not practically
identical with the previous one?5 It is this
that was meant: If one surveyor extended the
limit and another reduced it, the one whose
limit is the greater is to be obeyed. Abaye
added: Provided the extended limit6 does not
exceed the lesser one by more than the
difference between the diagonal and a side of
the town.7
SINCE THE SAGES DID NOT ENACT
THE LAW IN ORDER TO ADD
RESTRICTIONS BUT IN ORDER TO
RELAX THEM. But was it not taught: The
Sages did not enact the law in order to relax
restrictions but in order to impose them?
Rabina replied. The meaning8 is: Not to relax
restrictions in connection with Pentateuchal
laws but to add restrictions to them; the laws
of the Sabbath limits, however, are only
Rabbinical.9
MISHNAH. IF A TOWN THAT BELONGED TO
AN INDIVIDUAL WAS CONVERTED INTO
ONE BELONGING TO MANY,10 ONE ERUB
MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN;11
BUT IF A TOWN BELONGED TO MANY AND
WAS CONVERTED INTO ONE BELONGING
TO AN INDIVIDUAL, NO SINGLE ERUB MAY
BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN12
UNLESS A SECTION OF IT OF THE SIZE OF
THE TOWN OF HADASHAH13 IN JUDEA,
WHICH CONTAINS FIFTY RESIDENTS, IS
EXCLUDED;14 SO R. JUDAH. R. SIMEON
RULED: THREE COURTYARDS EACH OF
WHICH CONTAINED TWO HOUSES.

27

ERUVIN 53a-79a
GEMARA. How is one to imagine A TOWN
THAT BELONGED TO AN INDIVIDUAL
AND WAS CONVERTED INTO ONE
BELONGING TO MANY?- Rab Judah
replied: The residential district,15 for
instance, of the Exilarch. Said R. Nahman to
him: What is your reason?16 If it be
suggested: Because many people meet at the
seat of authority17 they would remind each
other,18 are not all Israel [it may be objected]
assembled together on a Sabbath morning
also?19 Rather said R. Nahman: The
private town, for instance, of Nitzwoi.20
Our Rabbis taught: If a town belonging to an
individual was converted into one belonging
to many, and a public domain21 passed
through it, how is an erub to be provided for
it? A side post or a cross-bean, is fixed on
either side22 and thereby one is enabled to
move things about in the space between
them.23 No erub, however, may be provided
for a half of it,24 but either one erub for all of
it or one erub for each alley separately.25 If a
town did, and still does belong to many
(1) Since the Mishnah ruled: THE EXTENDED
LIMIT IS OBSERVED.
(2) Lit., , yes.
(3) Is this likely? If it is permitted to walk the
greater distance is it possible that the lesser one
should be forbidden?
(4) Sc. the lesser limit (cf. nn. on our Mishnah) is
extended to that of the greater one.
(5) IF ONE EXTENDED THE LIMIT AT ONE
POINT MORE THAN AT ANOTHER.
(6) Where it exceeded the difference between the
measurements by a taut and a sagging rope.
(7) In such a case it is possible to assume that one
surveyor erroneously measured the perpendicular
from the side while the other properly measured
diagonally (v. supra 58b); cf. Rashi s.v. and cf.
Tosaf. s.v. a.l.
(8) Of the Baraitha just cited.
(9) Which may well be relaxed (cf. supra 36a.
Sotah 30b). Hence the statement in our Mishnah.
(10) I.e., belonging to one individual from which
all the inhabitants hold their houses in tenancy.
The whole town is, therefore, treated like one huge
courtyard.
(11) As was the case before it has changed its
character. The entire town is treated as one large
courtyard, no independent provision being
required for its alleys. This, as will be explained

infra, applies to a town that has no public domain

sixteen cubits in width.
(12) Though before it changed its character one
erub served for the whole town.
(13) V. Josh. XV, 37.
(14) From the benefits of the general erub, and a
separate erub is provided for it. This exclusion
serves as a reminder of the former public
character of the town and provides the necessary
precaution in case the town is re-converted into
one belonging to many when separate provision
would have to be made for each individual alley.
(15) [Daskarta from the Persian "das = district,
and Aramaic Kartha = city; v. Obermeyer p.
146.]
(16) For instancing just the Exilarch's town.
(17) Harmana, metaph. for the Exilarch's office.
(18) Of the real character of the town and would
not be likely, in consequence, to mistake the
difference between a public town and a private
one.
(19) For public worship or study.
(20) MS.M., Nishwor, a certain individual who
owned a town; and the same law applies to any
town in private ownership that was converted into
one belonging to many.
(21) A road sixteen cubits wide.
(22) Of the public domain.
(23) This applies only to a town that had no wall
round it so that the two ends of the public domain
terminated in the open country. Hence It is only in
the case of a town that was originally in private
ownership that the contrivances mentioned are
sufficient. In the case of one that always belonged
to the public such contrivances are invalid, all the
town's alleys being subject to restrictions similar
to those of the public domain.
(24) Since originally it constituted one domain it
cannot now be broken up into two independent
domains. The inhabitants of the one half (like the
residents in one of the courtyards of an alley who
failed to participate in the erub of the other
courtyards that cause the entire alley to be
forbidden to all) cause the entire town to be
forbidden to all.
(25) The objection will be raised infra as to why
(cf. prev. n.) the alleys do not cause one another to
be forbidden to all.

Eruvin 59b
but1 had only one gate,2 a single erub suffices
for all of it. Who is it that learned that a
public domain may thus be provided with an
erub?
R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: It is R.
Judah; for it was taught: A more lenient rule

28

ERUVIN 53a-79a
than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man
had two houses on the two sides respectively
of a public domain he may construct one
side-post on one side of any of the houses and
another on the other side, or one cross-beam
on the one side of any of the houses and
another on its other side and then he may
move things about in the space between
them; but they said to him: A public domain
cannot be provided with an erub in such a
manner.3

the inner one can well lock its gate and use
[its own area only].21 but can the public
domain here be shifted from its place?22

The Master said: No erub, furthermore,

may be provided for a half of it. R. Papa
explained: This was said only [in the case
where the division was] longitudinal4 but if it
was crosswise5 an erub may be provided for
each half separately. In agreement with
whose view has this6 been laid down? It is
contrary to that of R. Akiba, for if it were
suggested that it was in agreement with his
view [the objection would arise:] Did he not
rule: A man7 who is permitted freedom of
movement in his own place8 causes the
restriction of free movement on others9 in10 a
place that is not his?11

Here we are dealing with a case where a

barrier was provided,26 and this ruling is in
harmony with the following one that was laid
down by R. Idi b. Abin in the name of R.
Hisda: Any of the residents of an alley who
had made a barrier to his courtyard
entrance27 can no longer28 impose any
restrictions on the freedom of movement of
the other residents of the alley.

It6 may be said to be in agreement even with

the view of R. Akiba, since he maintained his
view only there where it was a case of two
courtyards one of which was behind12 the
other so that the inner one had no other
door,13 but not here where the inhabitants in
the one half could gain egress through one
gate while those in the other half could gain
egress through the other. Some there are who
read: R. Papa explained: It must not be
assumed [that only where the division was]
longitudinal14 may no erub be prepared15
but that where it was crosswise16 an erub
may be prepared.15 The fact is that even
where the division was crosswise no erub
may be prepared.15 In agreement with whose
view is this17 laid down? Is it only in
agreement with that of R. Akiba?18
It17 may be said to be in agreement even with
the view of the Rabbis, since they maintained
their view19 there only where it is a case of
two courtyards one behind20 the other so that

The Master said: Either one erub for all of

it or one erub for each alley separately.
Now why is no separate erub allowed for
either half? Obviously because they would
cause one another to be forbidden;23 but then
would not the various alleys also24 cause one
another to be forbidden?25

BUT IF A TOWN BELONGED TO MANY

AND WAS CONVERTED, etc. R. Zera
provided an erub for R. Hiyya's town29 and
left no section out [of its provision]. Said
Abaye to him, Why did the Master act in
this manner?30 Its elders, the other replied:
told me that R. Hiyya b. Assi used to provide
one erub for all the town and I have,
therefore, concluded that it must have been a
town that once belonged to a single owner
and was later converted into one belonging to
many.31 The same elders, the first retorted,
told me: "It formerly had a rubbish heap on
one side";32 but now that the rubbish heap
has been removed the town must be regarded
as possessing two gates in which [the
preparation of a single erub only] is
forbidden. I, the other admitted, was not
aware of this.
R.33 Ammi b. Adda of Harpania enquired of
Rabbah,34 What is the ruling where a town
had a ladder35 on one side and a gate on the
other?36 Thus, the other replied, said
Rab, A ladder has the legal status of a door.
Do not pay heed to him, exclaimed R.
Nahman, thus ruled R. Adda b. Ahabah37 in
the name of Rab:38 "A ladder has sometimes

29

ERUVIN 53a-79a
the status of a door and sometimes that of a
wall". It has the status of a wall39 as has just
been laid down;40 and it has the status of a
door where a ladder41 is put up between two
courtyards42 in which case the residents, if
they wish, may43 provide only one erub,44
and if they prefer, they may provide two
separate erubs.45
Could R. Nahman, however, have made such
a statement?46 Did not R. Nahman in fact lay
down in the name of Samuel: If the residents
of a courtyard and those of a balcony47 above
it forgot
(1) Being enclosed on all sides.
(2) Thus being short of the requirements of a
public domain which must be wide open at both
its ends.
(3) Supra 6af q.v. notes.
(4) Sc. if the division was made along the public
domain which ran through the entire length of the
town, from gate to gate, and divided it into two
longitudinal halves. As the public domain is used
by the inhabitants on both sides it forms a link
between the two halves of the town and combines
them into one inseparable unit.
(5) Sc. it cut the town into two halves across the
middle of the public domain and left for either
half of the town a half of the public domain with
the gate at its end, so that it was possible for the
inhabitants of either half to use their own gate as
entrance and exit and to avoid entirely the use of
the public domain in the other half of the town.
(6) R. Papa's ruling.
(7) Lit., foot, hence a man's right of passage.
(8) Sc. in his own courtyard where a valid erub
had been prepared.
(9) Even though they also prepared the prescribed
erub.
(10) Cur. edd. insert even which is deleted by
Rashi and others.
(11) Infra 75a. Sc. in an outer courtyard in which
he did not reside but in which he was entitled to
the right of passage by virtue of his residence in an
inner courtyard whose one and only door opened
out into it. Now, since according to R. Akiba the
residents of the inner courtyard, on account of
their right of passage through the outer one,
impose restrictions on the free movement of its
residents, the inhabitants of the two halves of the
town under discussion should likewise, according
to R. Akiba, impose upon one another the
restrictions of free movement, since each of them
is also entitled to a right of passage through the
public domain that passed through the other half
of the town in which he did not reside. As no such

restrictions, however, are imposed, must R. Papa's

ruling be said to be contrary to R. Akiba's view?
(12) Lit., within.
(13) But the one that opened into the outer
courtyard. As no other door was available to
them, the residents of the inner courtyard must
perforce use the outer courtyard as their only
passage to the street and, by this right of entry,
must restrict the freedom of movement of its
residents.
(14) V. supra p. 414, n. 2.
(15) By the inhabitants of each half town
separately.
(16) V. supra p. 414, n. 3.
(17) R. Papa's ruling.
(18) Cf. prev. nn. Is it likely, however, that R.
Papa would lay down a ruling that was contrary
to the opinion of the majority of the Rabbis who
differed from R. Akiba?
(19) That where each courtyard had prepared a
separate erub the residents of the inner one,
despite their right of passage through the outer
one, do not restrict the freedom of movement of its
residents.
(20) Lit., , within.
(21) In the interests of the residents of the outer
courtyard the inner ones might well be expected to
forego their right of passage for that one day.
(22) Of course not. As it must remain where it is
and there is no gate, fence or any other
distinguishing mark to separate the one half of the
town from the other, the two halves must be
regarded as one unit and, therefore, no separate
erubs can be permitted.
(23) As was explained supra.
(24) Since originally when the town belonged to
one owner they were allowed free movement
between each other.
(25) Despite the side-posts or cross-beams.
(26) For the entrance to each alley, the residents
thereby indicating that they desired to sever all
connection between their previously united alleys.
(27) Thus indicating his desire to be dissociated
from his neighbors.
(28) By failing to join them in their erub.
(29) Which belonged to many.
(30) Sc. why did he not exclude at least a section
OF THE SIZE OF THE TOWN OF
HADASHAH?
(31) In which case ONE ERUB MAY BE
PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN.
(32) As the heap blocked up one of the gates all the
town, which was thus left with one gate only, could
well be provided (as laid down supra) with a single
erub.
(33) Wanting in MS.M.
(34) MS.M. adds: b. Abbuha.
(35) Whereby the town wall could be scaled.
(36) Is the town to be treated as having two gates?
(37) So Bah. Cur. edd. omit the last two words.

30

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(38) MS.M. omits, in the ... Rab.
(39) I.e., it is not regarded as a door.
(40) By R. Nahman, where the ladder was used as
a means of entrance into, and exit from the town.
(41) Four handbreadths wide.
(42) Which had no door between them.
(43) As in the case of two courtyards between
which a door communicated (cf. infra 76a).
(44) For both courtyards; and all the residents
are, thereby, permitted to use both courtyards by
way of the trip of the wall or through any holes or
cracks in the wall.
(45) One for each courtyard, and the residents of
the one do not in any way affect the freedom of
movement of the other, each courtyard being
regarded as a separate domain.
(46) That a ladder has the status of a wall where
such status leads to a relaxation of the law.
(47) Marpeseth, a balcony or gallery to which the
doors of the dwellings of an upper storey open and
which communicates with the courtyard below by
means of a ladder.

Eruvin 60a
to prepare an erub1 the latter does not
restrict freedom of movement in the former if
a barrier, four handbreadths in height,
intervened between them,2 otherwise it does
impose a restriction?3 Here we are dealing
with a case where the balcony was less than
ten handbreadths high.4 But if the balcony
was less than ten handbreadths high5 what is
the use of making a barrier?6 This is a
case where it was enclosed [all along its
length] up to ten cubits,7 so that if it was
provided with a barrier they may be deemed
to be entirely removed from there.8
Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If a wall9
was lined with ladders,10 even though they
extended to a greater length than ten cubits,
it nevertheless retains the status of a wall.11
R. Berona pointed out to Rab Judah the
following incongruity at the schoolhouse12 of
R. Hanina:13 Could Samuel have ruled that
it nevertheless retains the status of a wall,14
seeing that R. Nahman citing Samuel ruled:
If the residents of a balcony and those of a
courtyard15 forgot to prepare a joint erub
they do not impose any restrictions upon one
another if there was a barrier of four
handbreadths between them, otherwise they
do impose restrictions upon one another?16

Here we are dealing with a case where the

balcony was less than ten handbreadths
high.17 But if the balcony is less than ten
handbreadths high what is the use of making
a barrier? This is a case where it was
enclosed [all along its length] up to ten cubits,
so that if a barrier is provided they may be
deemed to be completely removed from that
place.18 Some of the men of Kekunai19 once
came to R. Joseph and said to him, Send
with us a man who might prepare an erub
for our town.20 Go, he said to Abaye, and
prepare the erub for them but see that there
is no outcry against it at the schoolhouse.21
Proceeding thither he observed that certain
houses opened on to the river.22 These,23 he
said: might serve as the excluded section24 of
the town.
Changing his mind he said: We learned: NO
SINGLE ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR
ALL THE TOWN, from which it follows that
if it were desired,25 they could all join in one
erub.26 I would, however, provide for then,
windows,27 so that if desired they could be
joined in the general erub" of the town
through those windows.28 Then he said:
This29 is not necessary, since Rabbah b.
Abbuha in fact provided separate erubs for
each row of alleys throughout all Mahuza on
account of the cattle ditches that intervened
between the rows,30 where31 each row served
as the statutory excluded section for the
other32 though these could not join one
another in a common erub even if they had
wished to do so.33 Then again he said: The
two cases34 are really unlike, since there35
one could if desired prepare the erub by way
of roofs36 while these37 could not possibly join
in one general erub: consequently let us
provide for them windows. Finally, however,
he said: Windows are not necessary either,
for Mar b. Pupidetha of Pumbeditha had a
store of straw which38 he set aside for
Pumbeditha as the statutory section that was
to be excluded.39 It is on account of this
[group of houses]. Abaye remarked: that
the Master warned me: See that there is no
outcry against it at the schoolhouse.40

31

ERUVIN 53a-79a
UNLESS A SECTION OF IT OF THE SIZE
OF THE TOWN OF HADASHAH... IS
EXCLUDED. It was taught: R. Judah
related, There was a town in Judea whose
name was Hadashah which had fifty
inhabitants, men, women and children, by
means of which the Sages determined [the
statutory size of the sections to be
excluded];41 and this town itself served as the
excluded section [of a larger town].42 The
question was raised: What was the procedure
in Hadashah itself?43 Since Hadashah
served as the excluded section of the large
town42 the latter also obviously served as the
excluded section of the smaller town; the
question rather is: What is the procedure44 in
a town that is similar in size to Hadashah?45
R. Huna and Rab Judah differ on this
point One holds that a section of it must be
excluded while the other maintains that none
need be excluded.
R.
SIMEON
RULED:
THREE
COURTYARDS, etc. R. Hama b. Goria
citing Rab stated: The halachah is in
agreement with R. Simeon. R. Isaac ruled:
Even one house and one courtyard [are
sufficient].46 One courtyard! Is this
conceivable?47 Rather say: One house in
one courtyard.
S
aid Abaye to R. Joseph: Is that ruling of R.
Isaac a tradition or a logical deduction?
What, the other retorted: does this matter
to us? Is then, the first replied. the
study of Gemara to be a mere sing-song?48
MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS49 IN THE
EAST50 INSTRUCTED HIS SON,51 PREPARE
FOR ME AN ERUB51 IN THE WEST,52 OR IF
HE WAS IN THE WEST52 AND HE
INSTRUCTED HIS SON51 PREPARE FOR ME
AN ERUB51 IN THE EAST,52 IF THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS HOUSE
WAS NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND
CUBITS53 AND THAT BETWEEN HIM AND
HIS ERUB WAS MORE THAN THIS, HE IS
PERMITTED TO PROCEED TO HIS HOUSE54
BUT FORBIDDEN TO PROCEED TO HIS

ERUB.55 IF THE DISTANCE TO HIS ERUB

WAS NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND
CUBITS AND THAT TO HIS HOUSE MORE
THAN THIS, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO
PROCEED TO HIS HOUSE56 BUT PERMITTED
TO PROCEED TO HIS ERUB.57 IF A MAN
DEPOSITS HIS ERUB WITHIN THE
[SABBATIC] EXTENSION OF A TOWN,58 HIS
ACT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.59 IF HE
DEPOSITED IT EVEN ONE CUBIT ONLY
BEYOND THE LIMIT60
(1) Jointly for the balcony and the courtyard, but
each was provided with a separate erub.
(2) Lit., before them, sc. at the foot of the ladder.
The door forms a partition between the two
courtyards so that the residents of the one can in
no way affect those of the other.
(3) As if the ladder were a proper door
communicating between the balcony above and
the courtyards below. From this it follows that,
according to R. Nahman, a ladder has the status of
a door where such status leads to a restriction of
the law; how then could it be said supra that he
held a ladder to have the status of a wall where the
law is thereby relaxed?
(4) It is in such a case only that a ladder cannot be
regarded as a wall whereby the law might be
relaxed.
(5) And consequently fully open to the courtyard.
(6) Balcony and courtyard, being so close to each
other, would be like two courtyards between
which no wall intervened which cannot be
separated from each other in their erub
arrangements.
(7) I.e., leaving only a gap not exceeding ten cubits
as a doorway.
(8) I.e., the residents of the balcony and courtyard
respectively may be deemed as having withdrawn
themselves from the use of each other's domain. In
the absence of such a barrier, however, the
balcony, owing to its close proximity to the
courtyard below, and its two cubits doorway, must
inevitably be regarded as forming one domain
with that courtyard even though the law must be
restricted as a consequence.
(9) Between two courtyards.
(10) Sc. a number of ladders were placed against
the wall, one next to the other.
(11) The ladders, though they afford access from
one courtyard into the other, are not necessarily
regarded as a breach of more than ten cubits that
causes the two courtyards to be regarded as one
requiring a joint erub, but can also be treated, if
it is so desired, as a wall separating the two
domains necessitating an erub for each domain
(Rashi).
(12) Aliter: press-room.

32

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(13) Var. lec. Sata (MS.M.) bar Senina (Bomb.
ed.).
(14) So that the law is not restricted to deprive a
wall of its status on account of a ladder that was
placed against it.
(15) Situated in close proximity below the former.
(16) Since the height of the balcony was not stated
the ruling presumably applies also to one that was
ten handbreadths high and that had the status of a
wall; which shows that a ladder (the usual means
of communication between balcony and
courtyard) does deprive a wall of its status and
imparts to it the character of one that has a door
in it.
(17) So that even in the absence of thee ladder it
could not be regarded as a valid wall.
(18) V. supra p. 418, nn. 1-2.
(19) Or Korkunia; identified with Kirkesium or
Circesium on the Euphrates.
(20) Which belonged originally to one man and
was now the possession of many.
(21) On account of the requirement for a certain
section to be excluded from the provisions of the
general erub of the town (cf. our Mishnah).
(22) That flowed behind the town, the houses
having possessed no other doors opening towards
the town.
(23) Which, owing to the position of the doors,
could not in any case be included in the general
erub of the town.
(24) Lit., remainder.
(25) To include those that were once excluded, and
to exclude instead other houses.
(26) As the houses by the river, however, could not
in any case be included (cf. supra n. 6) in the
town's erub they could not obviously be set aside
as the statutory section to be excluded.
(27) That will face the town, and the size of each of
which would be four handbreadths by four.
(28) And consequently night well serve also as the
statutory section to be excluded.
(29) The provision of windows.
(30) Supra, 26a q.v. diagram and notes.
(31) Since many alleys in each row were allowed to
join in one erub despite the fact that the town that
belonged to one man belonged once to many.
(32) For if that had not been the case each alley
would have required a separate erub to itself and
a side-post air cross-beam.
(33) On account of intervening cattle ditches
which cut off the approaches between the various
rows. Similarly in the case of the houses by the
river, though they could not be included in the
provision of the general erub of the town, they
might we;; serve as the statutory section to be
excluded.
(34) The houses by the river and the rows of alleys
that were separated by the cattle ditches.
(35) The last mentioned (v. prev. n.).
(36) Connected by balconies with one another.

(37) In the absence of the windows mentioned.

(38) Since (as laid down infra) the halachah is in
agreement with R. Simeon that it is not necessary
to exclude fifty tenants.
(39) As the exclusion of this store-house satisfied
the statutory requirements so should the houses
by the river.
(40) [Had he insisted on the people providing this
group of houses with windows unnecessarily, he
would have raised an outcry; v. Tosaf. ].
(41) Cf. our Mishnah.
(42) In its vicinity.
(43) Sc. could all the inhabitants of Hadashah join
in one erub?
(44) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(45) But which, unlike Hadashah, was not near to
a large town.
(46) To constitute the statutory section.
(47) A courtyard without a house, surely, could
not be regarded is a dwelling.
(48) A monotonous droning where no one is
interested in sources or origins.
(49) At the time the Sabbath had set in.
(50) Sc. in the open country in an easterly
direction from his house or HIS SON (v. Gemara
infra).
(51) Prior to the commencement of the Sabbath.
(52) Cf. supra n. 5.
(53) The permitted Sabbath limit.
(54) Sc. his house, with whose Sabbath limit he
was when the Sabbath had begun is regarded as
the place of his Sabbath rest from where he is
entitled to walk distances of two thousand cubits
in all directions.
(55) Because at the time the Sabbath had begun he
was more than a Sabbath limit away from it (cf.
prev. n. mut. mut.). The place of an erub which
one is unable to reach during the Sabbath between
this be regarded as one's place of Sabbath rest.
(On the distinction between this else and the one
supra 50b, v. Rashi a.l.).
(56) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(57) Cf. supra n. 9, mut. mut.
(58) I.e., within the area of seventy and two thirds
cubits around the town from which the two
thousand cubits of the Sabbath limit are
measured.
(59) Lit., he has not done anything, since in the
absence of the erub also he (cf. prev. n.) is
permitted to move within that area as well as a
Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits beyond it in
all directions on any side of the town; while all the
town itself is in this respect regarded as an area of
no more than four cubits by four within which its
inhabitants may freely move in addition to the
limits mentioned.
(60) I.e., (cf. Gemara infra) beyond the Sabbatic
extension of seventy and two thirds cubits around
the town.

33

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Eruvin 60b
HE LOSES1 WHAT HE GAINS.2
GEMARA. Assuming that EAST3 means the
east side of his house and that WEST3 means
the west of his house,4 one can well
understand how it is possible that THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS
HOUSE WAS NO MORE THAN TWO
THOUSAND
CUBITS
AND
THAT
BETWEEN HIM AND HIS ERUB WAS
MORE THAN THIS, since he would reach
his house before he could5 reach his erub,
but how is it possible that THE DISTANCE
between him and HIS ERUB should be NO
MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS
AND THAT TO HIS HOUSE MORE THAN
THIS?
R. Isaac replied: Do you think that EAST3
means east of his house and WEST3 the west
of his house? The meaning in fact is not so;
EAST denotes the east of the position of HIS
SON and WEST denotes the west position of
HIS SON.6 Raba son of R. Shila7 replied: One
may even explain EAST as the east of his
house and WEST as the west of his house
where, for instance, his house stood in a
diagonal direction.8
IF A MAN DEPOSITS HIS ERUB WITHIN
THE [SABBATIC] EXTENSION, etc. How
can you possibly assume that an erub would
be deposited BEYOND THE LIMIT?9
Rather read: Outside the Sabbatic
extension.10
HE LOSES WHAT HE GAINS. Only WHAT
HE GAINS and no more? Was it not in fact
taught: If a man deposits his erub within the
[Sabbatic] extension of a town, his act is of no
consequence. If he deposited it even one cubit
only beyond the [Sabbatic] extension of the
town, he gains that cubit11 and loses all the
town12 because the extent of the town is
included in the extent of the Sabbath
limit?13

This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to

a case where his measure14 terminated within
the town,15 while the former deals with one
where his measure terminated at the far end
of the town;16 this being in agreement with a
ruling of R. Idi who laid down in the name of
R. Joshua b. Levi: If a man17 was measuring
[the two thousand cubits distance from his
acquired Sabbath abode] and advancing
towards a town, and his measure18
terminated in the middle of the town he is
allowed to proceed no further than half the
town, but if his measure terminated at the far
end of the town,19 all the town, as far as he is
concerned, is regarded as four cubits and the
remainder of the Sabbath limit20 may be
made up for him.21 These,22 exclaimed R. Idi,
are nought but prophetic utterances;23 for
what is the difference whether the measure
terminated in the middle of the town or at the
end?24
Said Raba: We have learnt25 both these
cases: The people of a large town may walk
through the whole of a small town,26
(1) In one direction of the town.
(2) In the other direction. If the erub, for
instance, was deposited at a distance of one
thousand cubits in an easterly direction of the
town the man, since the erub entitles him to walk
distances of two thousand cubits from it in all
directions, is entitled to walk a total distance of
(1000 + 2000 = ) 3000 cubits from the town in an
easterly direction but only one thousand cubits in
the westerly direction. The entire area of the town
itself, as mentioned supra is, in this respect
regarded as no bigger than four cubits by four
and, in consequence, is not to be deducted from
the extent of the permitted limits.
(3) So MS.M. (agreeing with the reading in our
Mishnah). Cur. edd. here add lamed, to the.
(4) The house being situated between him on the
one side of it and his son on the opposite side.
(5) Lit., and not.
(6) The position of his house, however, may well
have been much further away than that of his
erub.
(7) MS.M., Rabbah b. Shila.
(8) In relation to him and his erub.
(9) Such an erub, which is unapproachable on the
Sabbath, would surely be useless.
(10) Of seventy and two thirds cubits around the
town. Cf. relevant note on our Mishnah.

34

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(11) On the side of the town where the erub was
deposited.
(12) When the Sabbath limit from the erub across
the town in the opposite direction (cf. prev. n.) is
measured, [the town is included in tile extent of
the Sabbath limit].
(13) And deducted from it. How then is this to be
reconciled with our Mishnah?
(14) Of the two thousand cubits prescribed for a
Sabbath limit.
(15) Either because the town was very big or
because the erub lay at a considerable distance
from it. In such a case only is the town included in
the extent of the Sabbath limit and the man is
forbidden to move beyond the far side of the town.
(16) In this case all the town is regarded as being
no bigger than four cubits by four, and the
Sabbath limit is extended beyond the town to a
distance of two thousand cubits minus the distance
between the erub and the side of the town near it.
(17) Who was overtaken by dusk underway and,
being unaware of the proximity of a town, had
acquired his Sabbath abode at the spot where he
happened to be at the time the Sabbath had set in
(cf. supra 45a); (and the same law applies to
a man who deposited an erub outside his own
town).
(18) V. p. 423, n. 7.
(19) Sc. the end opposite the one that was near his
erub.
(20) The difference between two thousand cubits
and the distance of the erub from the side of the
town nearest to it.
(21) By extending the Sabbath limit beyond the far
side of the town (cf. supra n. 3).
(22) n. Joshua b. Levi's rulings.
(23) Sheer imagination. V. however, Rash and
Tosaf.
(24) Apparently none.
(25) Infra 61a.
(26) That was situated within its Sabbath limit.
Now this must imply that the whole of the small
town is regarded as no bigger than four cubits and
that the remainder of the Sabbath limit may be
made up by extending the limit beyond the far
side of the small town, in agreement with R.
Joshua b. Levi's second ruling.

Eruvin 61a
but the people of the small town may not
walk through the whole of a large town.1 Now
what is the reason?2 Obviously3 because the
measure of the latter terminated in the
middle of the former town,4 while that of the
former terminated at the end of the latter
town.4 And R. Idi?5 He read in both cases6
The people may7 and expounded [the

Mishnah cited] as referring to an erub that

one8 deposited;9 but of the case of one who
was measuring,10 we have there learnt
nothing.11 Have we not indeed? Did we not as
a matter of fact learn: And to the measure12
of whom the Rabbis have spoken a distance
of two thousand cubits only is allowed even if
the end of his permitted measure terminated
within a cave?13 His14 ruling was required
in respect of a Sabbath limit that terminated
at the far end of a town, a case of which we
did not learn.15
R. Nahman stated: He who learns16 The
people may17 is not in error, and he who
learns the people may not17 not in error.
He who learns "the people may" is not in
error since he might explain it to refer to an
erub that one18 had deposited;19 while he
who learns "the people may not is not in
error since he might explain that it refers to
a case where the Sabbath limit was being
measured,18 and that a clause is missing
[from the Mishnah] which should properly
read thus: The people of a large town may
walk through the whole of a small town19 but
the people of the small town may not walk
through the whole of the large town.20 This,
however, applies only to a case where the
Sabbath limit was being measured, but if a
man stayed in a larger town and deposited
his erub in a smaller town21 or if he stayed in
a small town and deposited his erub in a
large town21 he may walk through the whole
of the town22 and a distance of two thousand
cubits beyond it.
R. Joseph citing Rami b. Abba who had it
from R. Huna ruled: If a town was situated
on the edge of a ravine, and23 there was a
barrier four cubits24 in height in front of it,
its Sabbath limit is measured from the edge
of the ravine,25 otherwise26 measuring27 must
begin from the door of every inhabitant's
house.28 Said Abaye to him:29 You told us in
connection with this that the barrier must be
four cubits in height; but why should this one
be different from all other barriers whose
prescribed
height
is
only
four
handbreadths?30 There,31 the other29

35

ERUVIN 53a-79a
replied, the use of the place involves no fear,
but the use of the place here32 does involve
fear.33
Said R. Joseph, whence do I derive this
ruling? From what was taught: Rabbi
permitted the inhabitants of Gader to go
down34 to Hamethan but did not allow the
inhabitants of Hamethan to go up to Gader.35
Now what could have been the reason?
Obviously, that the former36 did put lip a
barrier37 while the latter38 did not put up a
barrier.39
When R. Dimi came40 he explained: The
people of Gader used to molest the people of
Hamethan,
and
permitted41
meant
ordained.42 Then43 why should Sabbath be
different from other days? Because
intoxication is not uncommon on such a day.
Would they44 not molest them45 when they
come there?46 No; a dog in a strange town
does not bark for seven years.47 Now then,48
might not the people of Hamethan molest
those of Gader? No; they49 were not so
submissive as all that.50
R. Safra explained: Gader51 was a town that
was built in the shape of a bow.52 R. Dimi b.
Hinena explained: The former53 were the
inhabitants of a large town while the latter
were inhabitants of a small town.54 Thus55
taught R. Kahana. R. Tabyomi, however,
taught as follows: R. Safra and R. Dimi b.
Hinena differ, one explaining that Gader56
was a town built in the shape of a bow57 while
the other explains that the latter58 were the
inhabitants of a small town while the former
were inhabitants of a large town.
MISHNAH. THE PEOPLE OF A LARGE
TOWN MAY WALK59 THROUGH THE
WHOLE OF A SMALL TOWN,60 AND THE
PEOPLE OF A SMALL TOWN MAY61 WALK62
THROUGH THE WHOLE OF A LARGE
TOWN.60
HOW
IS
THIS
[To
BE
UNDERSTOOD]? IF A MAN STAYED IN A
LARGE TOWN AND DEPOSITED HIS ERUB
IN A SMALL TOWN60 OR IF HE STAYED IN A
SMALL TOWN AND DEPOSITED HIS ERUB

IN A LARGE TOWN,60 HE MAY WALK

THROUGH ALL THE TOWN AND TWO
THOUSAND CUBITS BEYOND IT. R. AKIBA
RULED: HE IS ALLOWED TO WALK NO
FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS
FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ERUB. SAID R.
AKIBA TO THEM:63 DO YOU NOT AGREE
WITH ME THAT IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS
ERUB IN A CAVE HE MAY WALK NO
FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS
FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ERUB? THEY63
REPLIED: WHEN IS THIS THE CASE? ONLY
WHERE NO PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN BUT
WHERE PEOPLE DWELL THEREIN ONE
MAY WALK THROUGH THE WHOLE OF IT
AND TWO THOUSAND CUBITS BEYOND IT.
THUS IT FOLLOWS THAT [WHERE AN
ERUB IS DEPOSITED] WITHIN IT THE LAW
IS MORE LENIENT THAN [WHERE ONE IS
DEPOSITED] ON THE TOP OF IT. AND TO
THE MEASURER,64 OF WHOM [THE RABBIS]
HAVE SPOKEN A DISTANCE OF TWO
THOUSAND CUBITS IS ALLOWED65 EVEN IF
THE END OF HIS [PERMITTED] MEASURE66
TERMINATED WITHIN A CAVE.67
(1) As if it were no bigger than four cubits. They
may walk so far only as the termination of their
Sabbath limit in whatever part of the town that
may happen to be, in agreement with the first
ruling of R. Joshua b. Levi.
(2) For the difference between the rights of the
inhabitants of the large and those of the smaller
town respectively.
(3) Lit., not?
(4) In agreement with the rulings of R. Joshua b.
Levi (cf. supra nn. 10f).
(5) How, in view of the rulings in the Mishnah just
cited, could he maintain that R. Joshua b. Levi's
rulings are sheer imagination.
(6) The first and second clause of the Mishnah
cited.
(7) Lit., people, people, sc. instead of reading
The people of the large town may... but the people
of the small town may not, etc. he reads: The
people... may in both clauses.
(8) Of the inhabitants of the large town.
(9) In the small town. As the man's erub lay
within the town the whole of it, as far as he is
concerned, is rightly regarded as no bigger than
four cubits.
(10) That spoken of by R. Joshua b. Levi.
(11) Hence R. Idi's exclamation.

36

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(12) A man who measures the two thousand cubits
distance from the place which he acquired as his
Sabbath abode or in which he deposited his erub.
(13) Supra 52b, Mishnah infra ad fin. The interior
of a cave being presumably subject to the same
law as the interior of a town, R. Joshua b. Levi's
ruling in respect of the latter is obviously covered
by the one relating to the former. An objection
against R. Idi. Aliter: Why should R. Joshua R.
Levi merely repeat a Mishnah?
(14) R. Joshua b. Levis.
(15) In the Mishnah. Hence also the justification of
R. Idi's exclamation. (Cf. supra n. 8 ad fin).
(16) In the final clause of the Mishnah just
discussed.
(17) Cf. supra n. 2.
(18) Sc. where no erub had been deposited within
either town, where in consequence the whole town
cannot be regarded as four cubits in respect of the
Sabbath limit, and where, as a result actual
distances must be measured.
(19) Where the latter was situated entirely within
the Sabbath limit of the former. If, for instance,
the distance between the two towns was one
thousand cubits and the smaller did not cover
more than one thousand cubits the people of the
larger town may walk through the whole of the
smaller (which being within their Sabbath limit, is
regarded as no bigger than four cubits) and
another thousand cubits or more beyond it to
complete their two thousand cubits Sabbath limit.
(20) Since the larger town (cf. prev. n.) is not
entirely situated within their Sabbath limit. They
may, therefore, walk the distance of a thousand
cubits between the two towns and another
thousand cubits, to complete their Sabbath limit,
within the larger town itself, but no further.
(21) That was situated within the Sabbath limit of
his own town.
(22) In which his erub had been deposited.
(23) Lit., if.
(24) So MS.M. Cur. edd. omit cubits.
(25) Which is regarded as the boundary of the
town.
(26) Lit., and if not, i.e., if no such partition was
provided.
(27) Of the Sabbath limit of the town.
(28) All the town, in the absence of the partition,
being regarded, for the reason to be given
presently, as an occasional and irregular
settlement which, in respect of Sabbath limits,
cannot be treated as one unit of four cubits. Every
house must be considered as a separate unit and
the Sabbath limit of its tenants begins from that
house.
(29) R. Joseph.
(30) V. supra 60b.
(31) In cases where a height of four handbreadths
is enough.
(32) Owing to the steepness of the ravine.

(33) A higher barrier is consequently required.

(34) On the Sabbath.
(35) Tosef. Er. IV.
(36) Being situated on the slope higher than
Hamethan.
(37) Which connected all their houses into one
town and thus enabled them to begin their
Sabbath limit from the town boundary.
(38) Having been situated on a lower part of the
slope.
(39) At the base of their slope, in consequence of
which (cf. supra p. 426, n. 9) only the tenants of
the few houses that were within the Sabbath limit
of Gader could be permitted to go up to that town,
but the tenants of all the other houses that were
without that limit could not.
(40) From Palestine to Babylon.
(41) Rabbi permitted, etc. v. supra.
(42) Sc. It was an ordinance laid down by Rabbi
that, while the people of Gader were allowed to
visit Hamethan, the people of the latter town, for
their own safety, shall not visit the former.
(43) If the ordinance had no bearing on the laws of
Sabbath limits.
(44) The people of Gader.
(45) The Hamethan people.
(46) To Hamethan.
(47) Proverb. As visitors the Gaderites would not
venture on a quarrel.
(48) If the Gaderites were at a disadvantage when
at Hamethan.
(49) The people of Gader.
(50) Though the Gaderites, as visitors, would seek
no quarrels at Hamethan, they would nevertheless
defend themselves if attacked.
(51) So with R. Han., contra Rashi (cf. Tosaf. s.v.
a.l.).
(52) Whose ends were four thousand cubits apart.
In such a case (cf. supra 55a) the Sabbath limit is
measured from the imaginary chord of the bow.
The limit of Gader consequently included
Hamethan which was no more than two thousand
cubits distant from the chord. The position of the
latter town, however, whose limit terminated at
the Gader chord which was more than two
thousand cubits distant from the center of its arc,
prevented its inhabitants from walking to Gader
which thus lay beyond their Sabbath limit.
(53) The people of Gader.
(54) The Sabbath limit of Gader terminated at the
far end of Hamethan (the smaller town) while the
Sabbath limit of Hamethan terminated in the
middle of the large town of Gader. As all
Hamethan lay within the Sabbath limit of Gader
the people of the latter town were permitted to
traverse its whole area (as if all the town were no
bigger than four cubits) and distances completing
the permitted two thousand cubits beyond it. As
part of Gader, on the other hand, was without the
Sabbath limit of Hamethan the people of the latter

37

ERUVIN 53a-79a
town could walk only to the end of their Sabbath
limit.
(55) Specifying the authorship of each of the two
last mentioned explanations.
(56) V. p. 427, n. 18.
(57) V. p. 427, n. 19.
(58) The people of Hamethan.
(59) In addition to the distances of two thousand
cubits in all directions.
(60) That was situated within its Sabbath limit.
(61) J.T., Alfasi and cur. edd. supra 60b read: but
the people... may not. Cf. also R. Nahman's
justification of the alternative readings of our
Mishnah.
(62) In addition to the distances of two thousand
cubits in all directions.
(63) The Rabbis who differed from his view.
(64) Sc. a person who did not deposit his erub in
the town in question but was measuring his way
and advancing towards it from his home town or
from a place where he had deposited his erub.
(65) But no more.
(66) Of two thousand cubits.
(67) And even if that cave was inhabited. Only in
the previous case where the erub lay within the
town or within the cave did the Rabbis regard the
entire area of the town and cave respectively as no
bigger than four cubits.

Eruvin 61b
GEMARA. Rab Judah laid down in the name
of Samuel: If a man spent the Sabbath in a
deserted1 town,2 he may, according to the
Rabbis, walk through the whole of it3 and two
thousand cubits beyond it.4 If, however, he
deposited his erub in a deserted town5 he is
allowed no more than a distance of two
thousand cubits from the place of his erub.6
R. Eleazar laid down: Whether a man spent
the Sabbath in a town or deposited in it his
erub he is permitted7 to walk through the
whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond.
An objection was raised: SAID R. AKIBA
TO THEM, DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH
ME THAT IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS
ERUB IN A CAVE HE MAY WALK NO
FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND
CUBITS FROM THE PLACE OF HIS
ERUB? THEY REPLIED: WHEN IS THIS
THE CASE? ONLY WHEN NO PEOPLE
DWELL THEREIN from which it is obvious,
is it not, that where NO PEOPLE DWELL
THEREIN they agree with him?8 By the

expression.9
NO
PEOPLE
DWELL
THEREIN a place was meant that was
unsuitable for dwelling.10
Come and hear: If a man spent the Sabbath
in a town, even though it was as big as
Antioch, [or if he spent the Sabbath] in a
cave, though it was like the cave of Zedekiah
the king of Judah.11 he may walk through the
whole of it and two thousand cubits beyond.
Now12 the town mentioned must be one that
is in a condition similar to that of the cave,
so that as the cave is one that is deserted13 so
must the town also be one that is deserted
and yet14 it was stated that only if a man
spent the Sabbath in it is the law15
applicable16 but not where he only deposited
his erub in it. Now whose view could this17
represent? If it be suggested: It is that of R.
Akiba, the difficulty would arise: What was
the point in speaking of a deserted town when
the same ruling applies also to one that is
inhabited.18 Consequently19 it must be said to
represent the view of the Rabbis.20 Now is not
the reason for the ruling21 that the man spent
the Sabbath in it,22 but if he had only
deposited his erub in it this ruling21 would
not have applied?23
Do not say that the town mentioned must be
one that is in a condition similar to that of the
cave but rather, the cave must be one that
is in a condition similar to that of the town;
so that as the town is inhabited the cave also
must be one that is inhabited; and this
ruling24 is that of R. Akiba who laid down:
HE25 IS ALLOWED TO WALK NO
FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND
CUBITS FROM THE PLACE OF HIS
ERUB, while in the case of one who had
spent the Sabbath within the town he26 agrees
with the Rabbis.27 But was it not stated: Like
the cave of Zedekiah?28
Like the cave of Zedekiah [in one respect] but
unlike the cave of Zedekiah [in another].
Like the cave of Zedekiah in respect of its
huge size,29 but unlike the cave of Zedekiah
for whereas the latter30 was deserted, the one
referred to was31 inhabited. Mar Judah once

38

ERUVIN 53a-79a
came across the people of Mabrakta who
were depositing their erubs at the Be Agobar
Synagogue.32 Penetrate33 he said to them,
further into its interior,34 that you may be
allowed to walk a greater distance.35
Contentious man, said Raba36 to him, in
respect of the laws of erub no one takes any
notice of the ruling of R. Akiba.37
CHAPTER VI
MISHNAH. IF A MAN LIVES IN A
COURTYARD WITH A HEATHEN OR WITH
ONE WHO DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PRINCIPLE OF ERUB,38 EITHER OF THEM39
CAUSES HIM TO BE RESTRICTED IN THE
USE OF THE COURTYARD.40 R.41 ELIEZER B.
JACOB RULED: NEITHER42 CAN RESTRICT
HIM43 UNLESS THERE ARE44 TWO
WHO46
IMPOSE
ISRAELITES45
RESTRICTIONS UPON EACH OTHER.47 R.
GAMALIEL48 RELATED: A SADDUCEE ONCE
LIVED WITH US IN THE SAME ALLEY IN
JERUSALEM AND FATHER TOLD US:49
HASTEN AND CARRY OUT50 ALL
NECESSARY ARTICLES INTO THE ALLEY51
BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS52 AND
THEREBY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON
YOU.53 R. JUDAH RELATED, [THE
INSTRUCTION54 WAS GIVEN] IN A
DIFFERENT
FORM:55
HASTEN
AND
ATTEND56 TO YOUR REQUIREMENTS IN
THE ALLEY57 BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS
ARTICLES
AND
THEREBY
IMPOSES
RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU.58
(1) Lit., ruined, desolate.
(2) No people lived in it but its wall was intact.
(3) Since (cf. prev. n.) it was surrounded by a wall.
(4) This ruling is also applicable according to the
view of R. Akiba, but the limitation according to
the Rabbis, is due to the ruling that follows.
(5) But did not himself spend the Sabbath in it.
(6) Because, in the case of the deposit of an erub,
as explained supra, the Rabbis draw a distinction
between all inhabited town and a deserted one.
Only in the former case is the entire area of the
town regarded as no bigger than four cubits. R.
Akiba, however, (cf. supra n. 9) differs from their
view and regards even an inhabited town as they
do a deserted one.
(7) According to the Rabbis.

(8) That Only two thousand cubits are allowed.

How then could R. Eleazar maintain that the
Rabbis conferred the same rights whether an
erub was put in an inhabited or in a deserted
place?
(9) Lit., what.
(10) Sc. one that had no walls around it.
(11) Through which he attempted his escape (cf.
Jer. LII, 7) and which is said to extend from
Jerusalem to the plain of Jericho.
(12) Since town and cave were mentioned in the
same context.
(13) No people presumably living in such a huge
subterranean cave. Aliter: No people would be
allowed to live in a royal cave (cf. Rashi s.v.
a.l.).
(14) Despite its possession of walls. In the absence
of walls no one would have allowed the man to
walk through the whole of its area in addition to
the two thousand cubits beyond it.
(15) That in addition to the permitted Sabbath
limit of two thousand cubits one may also walk
through the whole of its area.
(16) Lit., yes.
(17) That the privilege (cf. supra n. 9) is restricted
to the case of actual Stay in the town and does not
extend to that of an erub deposited in it.
(18) R. Akiba having ruled that even where a man
deposited his erub in an inhabited town he may
walk no further than two thousand cubits.
(19) Since a distinction is made between a
deserted, and an inhabited town.
(20) Who accordingly agree that if an erub was
deposited in a deserted town the privilege (cf.
supra p. 430, n. 9) does not apply.
(21) V. p. 430, n. 9.
(22) Lit., yes.
(23) How then could R. Eleazar maintain that
according to the Rabbis no distinction is made
between an inhabited town and a deserted one?
(24) V. Supra p. 430, n. 11.
(25) The man who deposited his erub in a certain
town wherein he did not spend the Sabbath.
(26) R. Akiba.
(27) V. loc. cit. n. 9.
(28) V. p. 430, n. 7.
(29) Lit., big.
(30) Lit., there.
(31) Lit., and here.
(32) A large building situated within the Sabbath
limit of Mabrakta. The people of the town, relying
on the ruling of the Rabbis, who allowed two
thousand cubits in addition to the whole area with
the walls surrounding the place of the erub, put
their erub anywhere within the building. [On the
Abe Gobar synagogue, v. Ta'an., Sonc. ed., p. 6a.
It was in the neighborhood of Mahuza.]
(33) With the erubs.
(34) Sc. the erubs should be placed as far away
from the town as possible.

39

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(35) As the Sabbath limit of the town. This advice
was given in accordance with R. Akiba's ruling
that a man IS ALLOWED TO WALK NO
FURTHER THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS
FROM THE PLACE and not from the walls
surrounding the place, OF HIS ERUB.
(36) A similar expression against Mar Judah was
used by Rabbah (cf. Kid. 58a).
(37) Since in the case of the erub laws the
halachah always rests with the author adopting
the more lenient view.
(38) A Samaritan. Cf. Mishnah supra 31b.
(39) Lit., behold this.
(40) As he is not the only possessor of the
courtyard he is forbidden to carry objects from
his house into the courtyard or vice versa unless
he has, before the commencement of the Sabbath,
rented from his neighbor, for the duration of the
Sabbath, the right the latter has in their common
courtyard.
(41) In some of the separate editions of the
Mishnah this is preceded by So R. Meir.
(42) Lit., for ever.
(43) In the use of the common courtyard.
(44) Besides the heathen or the Samaritan (v. n. 1).
(45) Living in houses in the same courtyard and
thus having a share in it.
(46) Unless they properly joined together in the
preparation of one erub.
(47) Only in such circumstances does the right of a
third tenant of the type mentioned, wherever that
right has not been duly rented from him, restrict
their use of the common courtyard. He cannot,
however, impose any restrictions upon an Israelite
if the latter and he are the only tenants. The
reason is explained in the Gemara infra.
(48) On the identity of the bearer of this name v.
Tosaf. s.v. a.l.
(49) On a certain occasion when the Sadducee
renounced his right to his share in the alley.
(50) Just before the Sabbath begins.
(51) In order to acquire by that act the Sadducee's
share.
(52) And thereby acquires again the right he at
first renounced.
(53) A Sadducee, according to this view, is not
regarded as a heathen, whose right in a courtyard
or an alley must be rented, but as a heretic
Israelite who may renounce his right by a mere
declaration, no renting of it being necessary. Since
the Sadducee in question had received no rent it
was within his power to withdraw his concession
at any moment provided the other tenants had not
acquired possession of the alley by carrying their
articles into it. Hence the instruction to HASTEN
the acquisition BEFORE the Sadducee had time to
change his mind.
(54) Just quoted by R. Gamaliel.
(55) Lit., in another language.
(56) Before the Sabbath begins.

(57) I.e., carry out all the objects in your house

that you require to have in the alley during the
Sabbath.
(58) According to R. Judah, a Sadducee who
renounced his right to his share without receiving
any payment for it may withdraw his concession
at any time even after the other tenants had, by
the performance of some act, acquired possession
of his share. As he might change his mind at any
moment the other tenants (cf. prev. n.) had to
carry out all they needed prior to the
commencement of the Sabbath.

Eruvin 62a
GEMARA. Abaye b. Abin and R. Hinena b.
Abin sat at their studies while Abaye was
sitting with them, and in the course of their
session they dealt with the following
argument: It is quite possible to understand
the view of R. Meir1 since he may hold the
opinion that a heathen's dwelling is legally a
valid dwelling2 and that no difference is to be
made between one [Israelite tenant]3 and two
[Israelite tenants].4 What, however, could be
the view of R. ELIEZER B. JACOB? If he is
of the opinion that a heathen's dwelling is
legally a valid dwelling,2 restrictions5 should
be imposed even In the case of one Israelite
tenant; and if he holds that it is legally no
valid dwelling, no restrictions should be
imposed5 even in the case of two Israelite
tenants!6
Said Abaye to them: But does R. Meir hold
that a heathen's dwelling is legally a valid
dwelling? Was it not in fact taught: A
heathen's courtyard7 has the same status as a
cattle-pen?8 Rather say: All agree that a
heathen's dwelling is legally no valid
dwelling, but the point at issue between
them9 here is the question whether a law10
had been instituted as a preventive measure
against the possibility of an Israelite's
learning to imitate his11 deeds.
R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that, since a
heathen is suspected of bloodshed,12 a
preventive measure has been enacted by the
Rabbis in the case of two Israelites, who quite
frequently live together with a heathen, but
not in that of one Israelite who as a rule does

40

ERUVIN 53a-79a
not live together with a heathen,13 while R.
Meir holds that, since it may sometimes
happen that one Israelite also should live
with a heathen, the Rabbis have laid down:
No erub is effective where a heathen lives in
the same courtyard, nor is the renunciation
of one's right14 effective where a heathen is
concerned15 unless that right has been let;
but a heathen would not let his right.16 What
is the reason?17
If it be suggested: Because he considers it
possible that the other might take permanent
possession of his share, the explanation would
be satisfactory according to him who holds
that the lease must be of a sound character;18
what, however, could be said in explanation
according to him who holds that only an
imperfect lease is required?19
For it was stated: R. Hisda ruled: The lease
must be of a sound character and R.
Shesheth ruled: It may be of an imperfect
character only. What is meant by imperfect
and what is meant by sound? If it be
suggested that sound denotes a rental of a
perutah20 and imperfect a rental that was
less than a Perutah, the objection would
arise: Is there any authority who upholds the
View that [acquisition] from a heathen
cannot be effected with less than a Perutah?
Did not, as a matter of fact, R. Isaac son of R.
Jacob b. Giyori send the following message in
the name of R. Johanan, Be it known to you
that one can lease from a heathen even with
less than a perutah, and R. Hiyya b. Abba
ruled in the name of R. Johanan, A
Noahide21 would rather be killed than spend
so much as a perutah22 which is not
returnable?23
The fact is that sound denotes a lease
confirmed by legal documents and attested
by officers,24 and imperfect denotes one that
was neither confirmed by legal documents
nor attested by officers. [Now,25 I again
submit:] The explanation would be
satisfactory according to him who holds that
the lease must be of a sound character: what,
however, could be said in explanation

according to hint who holds that only an

imperfect lease is required?26
Even in such a case27 he28 fears witchcraft29
and does not let his share in the courtyard.
[To revert to] the main text,30 A heathen's
courtyard has the same status as a cattle-pen
and it is, therefore, permitted31 to carry
things in and out, both from the courtyard
into the houses and from the houses into the
courtyard. But if only one Israelite32 was a
tenant there, he33 does impose restrictions;34
so R. Meir.35 R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled: No
restrictions are ever imposed36 unless there
are also two Israelite tenants37 who impose
restrictions upon one another.38
(1) Sc. the author of the first ruling of our
Mishnah.
(2) With reference to Sabbath, hence his right to a
share in the courtyard.
(3) Living in the courtyard with the heathen.
(4) v. prev. n. Hence his ruling that a heathen
invariably restricts the use of a common
courtyard irrespective of whether he has many
Israelite neighbors or only one.
(5) In the use of the common courtyard.
(6) Since in either case, as far as Sabbath laws are
concerned, he has no share in the courtyard; while
the Israelites shares are merged into one common
domain by means of their erub.
(7) In certain circumstances, as will be explained
infra.
(8) Tosef. Er. V. I.e., the tenancy by a heathen of
a house that opens into a common courtyard is
like a cattle-pen, and consequently does not
restrict the movement of objects on the Sabbath
from the houses into the courtyard, v. infra. Now
since this ruling, as will be shown infra, represents
the view of R. Meir, how could a contrary view be
attributed to him here.
(9) R. Meir and R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
(10) Subjecting an Israelite to the necessity of
renting the heathen's share every Sabbath eve.
(11) The heathen's.
(12) Cf. A.Z. 22a.
(13) Against something unusual no enactment was
deemed necessary. Hence R. Eliezer b. Jacob's
ruling that the restrictions applied to a courtyard
in which no less than two Israelites were the
heathen's neighbors.
(14) To a share.
(15) Lit., in the place of, i.e., a heathen's
renunciation of his right to his share in the
common courtyard has no validity.
(16) As the Israelite would in consequence be
subjected every Sabbath to much inconvenience

41

ERUVIN 53a-79a
he would naturally move out of that courtyard at
the earliest possible opportunity and, indirectly,
he would thereby be saved from the evil influence
of the heathen's questionable mode of life.
(17) That a heathen refuses to let his share.
(18) This will be explained presently.
(19) What possible objection could the heathen
have to such a detective lease?
(20) V. Glos.
(21) Lit., a son of Noah, sc. any heathen.
(22) The smallest coin (v. Glos.). Lit., for less than
the value of a perutah.
(23) Yeb. 47b, A.Z. 71a; which shows that in
respect of a heathen a transaction involving less
than a Perutah has the same validity as one
involving a Perutah. How then is imperfect and
sound to be understood?
(24) Aliter: A lease is sound if made legal by
sureties and (countersigned) by officers (Jast.).
Aliter: A lease of a courtyard is sound if connected
with the privilege of placing in the yard chairs and
seats (cf. Rashi a.l. and Jast.).
(25) Having disposed of the definition of sound
and imperfect.
(26) What possible objection could the heathen
have to such a defective lease?
(27) Where the lease was legally imperfect.
(28) The heathen, when requested to let his share.
(29) Not understanding the religious motive of the
request he suspects some underhand work.
(30) Quoted by Abaye supra q.v. notes.
(31) To an Israelite who was not one of the tenants
of that courtyard but happened to visit any of the
houses in it.
(32) Who, by virtue of his tenancy of a house, is
entitled to the use of the courtyard.
(33) Since the courtyard (cf. prev. n.) is deemed to
be his domain.
(34) On the carrying of objects by other Israelites
from the houses into the courtyard and vice versa.
(35) The last three words are absent from the
Tosef.
(36) On account of the heathen's tenancy.
(37) Occupying two houses in that courtyard.
(38) Tosef. Er. V. As the heathen's share is
distinct from theirs (a heathen's tenancy, as
explained supra, having been given validity in
such circumstances) they, by virtue of their shares
in the courtyard, impose restrictions on the
movements of objects from the heathen's house
into the courtyard while he, by virtue of his share,
despite the erub in which the two Israelites may
have joined, imposes restrictions on the
movements of objects from their houses into the
courtyard.

Eruvin 62b
The Master said: A heathen's courtyard has
the same status as a cattle-pen.1 Did we not,
however, learn: IF A MAN LIVES IN A
COURTYARD WITH A HEATHEN. . .
EITHER OF THEM CAUSES HIM TO BE
RESTRICTED?2
This is no difficulty, since the latter2 deals
with the case of a heathen who was at home3
while the former1 deals with one who was not
at home.3 But what principle does he4 adopt?
If he is of the opinion that a dwelling house
without an occupier is legally a valid
dwelling, should not even a heathen5 impose
restrictions;6 and if he is of the opinion that a
dwelling house without an occupier is legally
no valid dwelling should not an Israelite7 also
impose no restrictions? He,8 in fact, holds the
view that a dwelling house without an
occupier is legally no valid dwelling; but9 in
the case of an Israelite, who imposes
restrictions when he is at home,10 the
Rabbis11 have enacted a preventive measure
where he is away; while in the case of a
heathen who, even when at home, imposes
restrictions merely as a preventive measure
lest the Israelite learn to imitate his deeds12 it
was enacted that he imposes restrictions only
when he is at home but not in his absence.
But does he13 not impose restrictions when he
is absent? Have we not in fact learnt: If a
man left his house and went to spend the
Sabbath in another town, whether he was a
gentile or an Israelite, his share imposes
restrictions;14 so R. Meir?15 There15 it is a
case where he returns on the same day.16
Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The
halachah17 is in agreement with R. Eliezer b.
Jacob; R. Huna stated: The custom18 is in
agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer b.
Jacob; while R. Johanan stated: The public
act19 in agreement with the ruling of R.
Eliezer b. Jacob.
Said Abaye to R. Joseph: We have a
tradition, that the teaching of R. Eliezer b.
Jacob is small in quantity20 but well sifted;21

42

ERUVIN 53a-79a
and Rab Judah also laid down in the name of
Samuel, The halachah is in agreement with
R. Eliezer b. Jacob;22 is it then permitted23 to
a disciple24 to give a ruling accordingly25 in a
district that is under the jurisdiction of his
Master? Even, the other replied, on the
question of the permissibility of eating an
egg26 with kutha,27 which I28 have been
asking him29 throughout the lifetime of R.
Huna,30 R. Hisda gave me31 no decision.32
R. Jacob b. Abba asked Abaye: Is it
permitted to a disciple in a district under his
Master's jurisdiction to give a ruling that was
as authoritative as those contained in the
Scroll of Fast-Days,33 which is a written and
generally accepted document?34 Thus, the
other replied, said R. Joseph: Even on the
question of the permissibility of eating an
egg26 with kutha,27 which I28 have been
asking him29 throughout the lifetime of R.
Huna,30 R. Hisda gave me30 no decision. R.
Hisda decided legal questions at Kafri35 in
the lifetime of R. Huna.36
(1) From which it follows that a heathen can
impose no restrictions upon an individual Israelite
if the latter is the only other tenant in their Joint
courtyard. Only an Israelite imposes restrictions
on other Israelites in connection with the
movement of objects from and into the heathen's
house.
(2) Which shows, contrary to the ruling in the
Baraitha cited (cf. prev. n.), that a heathen
imposes restrictions upon an Israelite even where
the latter is the only other tenant in their joint
courtyard. How than are the two rulings to be
reconciled?
(3) During the Sabbath in question.
(4) The author of the Baraitha.
(5) Though away from home.
(6) Of course he should, since his absence does not
in any way affect the validity of his tenancy.
(7) If away from his home; since the validity of his
tenancy is impaired by his absence.
(8) The author of the Baraitha.
(9) In reply to the objection raised (cf. prev. n.).
(10) On account of the legal validity of his tenancy.
(11) In order to prevent an infringement of the
law when he is at home.
(12) Cf. supra 62a.
(13) A heathen tenant.
(14) On the other tenants of the courtyard.
(15) Supra 47a, infra 86a.

(16) Where, for instance, during the first part of

the Sabbath he was not far away from his home. If
no restrictions upon his fellow tenants had been
imposed, even in his absence, they might, after his
return, unconsciously have continued the
unrestricted use of their courtyard which they
enjoyed since the day began. Where, however, the
heathen is unable to return on the same day no
such precaution is necessary and consequently no
restrictions were imposed.
(17) Halachah, sc. the ruling may be promulgated
in a public discourse. V. following nn.
(18) Minhag, i.e., the ruling may not publicly be
announced (cf. prev. n.) but is to be communicated
privately to anyone seeking the information.
(19) Nahagu (cf. prev. two notes), i.e., the ruling
may not be communicated even in private, but if
any person acted in agreement with it no objection
may be raised against him.
(20) Kab (v. Glos.), i.e., his rulings in the Mishnah
are only few.
(21) Lit., clear, I.e., the halachah is always in
agreement with his rulings.
(22) Supra.
(23) Since the ruling is so unquestionably
authoritative.
(24) Who in ordinary cases must not venture to
give a decision in a locality that is under his
Master's jurisdiction.
(25) In agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob (v. our
Mishnah).
(26) A perfectly developed egg found in a
slaughtered fowl (so Tosaf. s.v. a.l.). The
question whether a properly laid egg may be eaten
with milk (cf. following n.) could, of course, never
arise (v. however, Rashi).
(27) A preserve containing milk.
(28) So MS.M. and Bah. Cur. edd. they.
(29) To test his loyalty to his Master.
(30) Whose colleague and disciple he was (cf.
Tosaf s.v. a.l.).
(31) Reading of MS.M. and Bah. Cur. edd. omit.
(32) Though the answer was quite simple and
obvious (cf. Bezah 6b) and could be supplied by a
mere tiro.
(33) Megillath Ta'anith, a scroll (the only halachic
collection which the Rabbis of the Talmud had in
a written form) containing a record of the days of
the year on which fasting and mourning were
forbidden; v. Ta'an., Sonc. ed., p. 70f.
(34) Lit., that is written and lying.
(35) A place in Babylon that was not subject to the
direct jurisdiction of R. Huna (v. following note).
(36) Who resided in another part of Babylon at
Pumbeditha (Rashi). [Obermeyer p. 317: Sura,
south of which lay Kafri.]

43

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Eruvin 63a
R. Hamnuna decided legal points at Harta1 di
Argiz2 during the lifetime of R. Hisda.3
Rabina examined the slaughterer's knife4 in
Babylon.5 Said R. Ashi to him, Why does the
Master act in this manner? Did not, the
other replied: R. Hamnuna decide legal
points at Harta di Argiz during the lifetime of
R. Hisda?6 It was stated, the first
retorted: that he did not decide legal points.
The fact is, the other replied: that one
statement was made that he did decide legal
points while another was that he did not do
so, and the explanation is that only during
the lifetime of his Master R. Huna did he
decide no legal points but during the lifetime
of R. Hisda, who was both his colleague and
disciple, he did decide legal points, and I too
am the Master's colleague as well as disciple.
Raba said: A young scholar may examine his
own knife.7 Rabina once visited Mahuza
when his host brought to him a slaughtering
knife for examination. Go, he8 said to him,
take it to Raba.9 Does not the Master, the
other asked: uphold the ruling laid down by
Raba that a young scholar may examine his
own knife? I, he8 replied, am only
buying the meat.10
(Mnemonic:11 Zila of12 Hania13 changes14
Ika15 and Jacob.16 )
R. Eleazar of Hagronia17 and R. Abba b.
Tahlifa once visited R. Aha son of R. Ika's
house in the district that was subject to the
jurisdiction of R. Aha b. Jacob. R. Aha son of
R. Ika, desiring to prepare for them a thirdgrown18 calf, presented to them the
slaughtering knife for examination. Should
no consideration be shown for the old
man?19 R. Aha b. Tahlifa asked. Thus, R.
Eleazar of Hagronia replied: said Raba: A
young scholar may examine his own knife.
R. Eleazar of Hagronia20 thereupon
examined the knife and was providentially
punished for his disrespect. But did not Raba
lay down, A young scholar lay examine his
own knife? There the case was different

since they began to discuss the question of

his19 dignity. And if you prefer I might reply:
R. Aha b. Jacob was different from other
local authorities since he was a man of great
distinction.
Raba ruled: When it is a question of
preventing one from committing a
transgression it is quite proper [for a disciple
to give a legal decision] even in his Master's
presence.
Rabina once sat in the presence of R. Ashi
when he observed that a certain person was
tying his ass to a palm-tree on the Sabbath
day.21 He called out to him but the other took
no notice. Let this man he called out, be
placed under the ban. Does such an act as
mine,22 he23 then asked [R. Ashi], appear as
an impertinence? There is no wisdom for
understanding nor counsel against the
Lord,24 wherever the divine name is being
profaned no respect is to be shown to one's
Master.25
Raba ruled: In the presence of one's Master
it is forbidden [to give a legal decision]26
under the penalty of death;27 in his absence
this is forbidden but the penalty of death is
not incurred. Is then no penalty of death
incurred in his absence? Was it not in fact
taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob28 stated: The sons
of Aaron died29 only because they gave a legal
decision in the presence of their Master
Moses. What was the exposition they made?
And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put
fire upon the altar;30 although, they said, fire
came down from heaven31 it is nevertheless a
religious duty to bring also some ordinary
fire.
R. Eliezer, furthermore, had a disciple who
once gave a legal decision in his presence. I
wonder, remarked R. Eliezer to his wife,
Imma Shalom, whether this man will live
through the year; and he actually did not
live through the year. Are you, she asked
him, a prophet? I, he replied: am neither
a prophet for the son of a prophet, but I have
this tradition: Whosoever gives a legal

44

ERUVIN 53a-79a
decision in the presence of his Master incurs
the penalty of death.) Now, in connection
with this incident Rabbah b. Bar Hana
related in the name of R. Johanan: That
disciple's name was Judah b. Goria and he
was three parasangs distant from his
Master?32 He was in his presence.33 But
was it not stated that he was three parasangs
distant?34 And according to your
conception what need was there for the
mention of his name and the name of his
father? But the fact is that all the details were
given in order that it be not said that the
whole story was a fable.
R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R.
Johanan: Whoever gives a legal decision in
the presence of his Master deserves to be
bitten by a snake, for it is said: And Elihu the
son of Barachel the Buzite answered and
said: I am young, etc. wherefore I held
back,35 and elsewhere36 it is written: With the
venom of crawling things37 of the dust.38
Ze'iri stated in the name of R. Hanina: He is
called a sinner, for it is said: Thy word have I
laid up in my heart,39 that I might not sin
against Thee.40
R. Hamnuna pointed out an incongruity: It is
written: Thy word have I laid up39 in my
heart,40 and it is also written: I preached
righteousness in a great congregation.41
This is really no contradiction, the former
relating to the time when Ira the Jairite42 was
still alive while the latter relates to the time
when Ira the Jairite was no longer alive.
R. Abba b. Zabda43 stated: Whoever gives44
his priestly gifts to one priest [only] brings
famine into the world. For it is said in
Scripture: Ira the Jairite was priest to
David.45 Now was he priest to David alone
and not to all the world?46 But the meaning is
that David sent to him47 his priestly gifts; and
this is followed by the text: And there was a
famine in the days of David.48
R. Eliezer49 said: He50 is deprived of his
greatness For it is said: And Eleazar the
priest said unto the men of war... This is the

statute of the law which the Lord hath

commanded Moses;51 although he thus said
to them, He commanded my father's
brother52 and not me53 he was nevertheless
punished,54 as it is written: And he55 shall
stand before Eleazar the priest56 and yet we
do not find that Joshua ever needed his
guidance.
R. Levi stated: He who answers a word57 in
the presence of his Master goes down to Sheol
childless; for it says in Scripture: And Joshua
the son of Nun, the minister of Moses from
his youth up, answered and said: My lord
Moses, shall them in58
(1) MS.M.: Hadeta.
(2) Harta of Argiz, the name of the person who
built the town of Harta. Rashi: in the name of
.
(3) Whose colleague and disciple he was (cf. Tosaf.
s.v. a.l.). [R. Hisda was at that time head of the
School at Sura which comprised within its
jurisdiction Harta di Argiz, Obermeyer, loc. cit.].
(4) Used in the ritual slaughter of clean beasts and
fowls. Such a knife, in order to reduce the pain of
the animal to the lowest minimum, must he
carefully ground until a very fine edge is obtained,
and before use must also be submitted to the
highest local religious authority for examination.
(5) Though his Master, R. Ashi, was the supreme
religious authority at Matha Mehasia, a place near
Sura. [The town Babylon was in the neighborhood
of Sura, v. Obermeyer p. 304].
(6) As R. Hamnuna, though a disciple of R. Hisda,
was allowed to give legal decisions in a Babylonian
town because R. Hisda, the supreme religious
chief, resided in another part of Babylon so,
Rabina submitted, was he also allowed to occupy
the position of local religious authority in respect
of the examination of the slaughtering knife in a
town in which R. Ashi himself did not reside.
(7) Cf. supra n. 1. He need not submit it for
examination to the supreme local religious
authority if he is using it himself for his own beast.
(8) Rabina.
(9) Who was the religious head of the locality.
(10) From the innkeeper, sc. as the beast was not
being killed exclusively for his own use the
examination of the knife does not come under the
ruling cited.
(11) An aid to the recollection of the names that
follow.
(12) So Bah. Cur. edd. to Hania.
(13) R. Eleazar of Hagronia.
(14) R. Abba b. Tahlifa (rt. change).
(15) R. Aha son of R. Ika.

45

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(16) R. Aha b. Jacob.
(17) Near Nehardea.
(18) Aliter: Third-born. Aliter: In its third year.
(19) R. Aha b. Jacob who was the supreme
religious head of the place and whose prerogative
it was to examine the instrument.
(20) Or he, omitting the name with MS.M.
(21) The use of a growing tree on the Sabbath is
Rabbinically forbidden.
(22) Acting in the presence of the religious head of
the place.
(23) Rabina.
(24) Prov. XXI, 30.
(25) Wisdom, etc. of one's Master are regarded as
of no consequence when an act is committed
against the Lord.
(26) Except, as stated supra, where the
profanation of the divine name is at stake.
(27) At the hands of Heaven.
(28) So Bah. Cur. edd. omit the last two words.
(29) Cf. Lev. X, 1f.
(30) Ibid. I, 7.
(31) V. ibid. IX, 24.
(32) When he gave the legal decision mentioned;
which shows that the penalty of death is incurred
even where a decision is given in the Master's
absence. An objection against Raba's last cited
statement.
(33) At the time he gave the legal decision. The
distance of three parasangs mentioned referred
only to that of the disciple's usual place of
residence from the residence of his Master.
(34) If the distance had no connection with the
place where the decision was given what was the
point in mentioning it at all?
(35) rt. Job. XXXII, 6.
(36) Cf. Bah.
(37) rt. .
(38) I.e., snakes. Deut. XXXII, 24.
(39) He refrained from giving legal decisions in the
presence of his Masters.
(40) Ps. CXIX, 11.
(41) Ibid. XL, 10.
(42) David's teacher (cf. II Sam. XX, 26).
(43) En Jacob and Asheri read: R. Abba b.
Kahana; MS.M., R. Kahana.
(44) Var. lec. sends (MS.M. Ct Jacob and
Asheri).
(45) II Sam. XX, 26.
(46) Of course not. A priest obviously enjoys that
dignity before all Ben.
(47) And to no other priest.
(48) Ibid. XXI, 1.
(49) Var. lec. Eleazar.
(50) Who gives a legal decision in the presence of
his Master.
(51) Num. XXXI, 21.
(52) Moses.

(53) Thus acknowledging that the statute he was

teaching them was taught to him by his Master
Moses.
(54) For promulgating it in the presence of the
Master.
(55) Joshua.
(56) Num. XXVII, 21, i.e., Joshua will have to
submit his doubts and difficulties to Eleazar.
(57) To a question submitted.
(58) Nun. Xl, 28. Kela'em, an answer in one
word.

Eruvin 63b
and elsewhere it is written: Nun his son,
Joshua his son.1 This exposition, however,
differs from that of R. Abba b. Papa, for R.
Abba b. Papa2 stated: Joshua was punished3
for no other sin than that of preventing Israel
or one night from the duty of propagation;
for it is said in Scripture: And it came to
pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he
lifted up his eyes and looked, etc.4 and this is
followed by the text: And he said: Nay,5 but
I am captain of the host of the Lord, I am
now come.6 Last evening,7 he said to him
[in effect]. you omitted to offer up the
continual evening sacrifice8 and now you are
neglecting the study of the Torah.9 On
account of which offence, the other asked,10
did you come?
Now,11 he replied. am I come. Joshua, we
read forthwith, went that night into the midst
of the vale,12 a text which, R. Johanan
explained, teaches that he entered into the
profundities of the halachah.13 And we have a
tradition that so long as the Ark and the
Shechinah are not settled in their appointed
place14 connubial intercourse is forbidden.15
R. Samuel b. Inia16 stated in the name of
Rab: The study of the Torah is more
important than the offering of the daily
continual sacrifices,17 since he said to him,18
now am I come.19
R. Berona stated in the name of Rab:
Concerning the man who sleeps in a room20
in which husband and wife rest Scripture
says: The women of My people ye cast out
from their pleasant houses.21 This, R. Joseph

46

ERUVIN 53a-79a
said, applies even to the time when one's wife
is menstruant. Raba said: If one's wife is
menstruant may a blessing come upon him.22
This,23 however, is not very logical, for who
watched him24 until that time?25
There was a certain alley in which Lahman26
b. Ristak27 lived. Will you let us28 your
domain?29 said the other residents to him;
but he would not let it to them. So they went
to Abaye and reported the matter to him.
Renounce, he advised them, your
respective domains30 in favor of one resident
so that he would be in the position of one
individual living in the same place with a
heathen, and wherever one individual lives in
the same place with a heathen the latter
imposes no restrictions upon the former.31
Is not the only reason,32 he was asked,33
that it is not usual for one Israelite and one
heathen to live together? And is it not a fact
that these did live together? The
renunciation of private domains in favor of
one resident, he replied: is an unusual
occurrence, and the Rabbis enacted no
prohibitory measures against any occurrence
that is unusual.34
R. Huna son of R. Joshua proceeded to
report this ruling35 to Raba when the latter
remarked:36
(1) I Chron. VII, 27, no son of Joshua being
mentioned.
(2) MS.M. that of R. Hanina, for R. Hanina b.
Papa.
(3) Having to die childless.
(4) Josh. V, 13.
(5) . Cur. edd. in Parenthesis, to him.
(6) Ibid. 14.
(7) The one preceding the night of the meeting.
(8) Cf. Num. XXVIII, 1ff.
(9) Joshua, engaging in incessant warfare both by
day and night, was unable to allow time either for
the daily evening sacrifice or for the study of the
Torah which the people were expected to pursue
in the evening when they were free from their
labors. The critical attitude of the captain is
inferred (v. Rashi) from his appearance with his
sword drawn (Josh. V. 13); and the emphasis he
laid on now (v. infra n. 12) implies that
previously also some offence had been committed.
(10) Cf. MS.M. and Bah.
(11) For the last mentioned offence.

(12) Josh. VIII, 13.

(13) Went (rt. )and vale (rt. )are
expounded as entered and profundities which
are respectively derived from the same Heb. roots.
For other readings of the passage v. Bah a.l. and
Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 289, n. 12.
(14) Which was the case when a battle was in
progress.
(15) Joshua, having been the cause, suffered in
consequence the disability mentioned.
(16) Var. lec. Iwya (En Jacob).
(17) Cf. Num. XXVIII, 1f.
(18) The captain to Joshua.
(19) Josh. V, 14. He was more concerned with the
latter offence than with the former.
(20) Lit., curtain, a curtained enclosure.
(21) Micah II, 9.
(22) The man who by his presence provides a
moral safeguard.
(23) Raba's view.
(24) The husband.
(25) No one, of course, besides himself and his
wife. If the husband and wife are thus trusted by
the Torah to be fully competent to look after their
moral Interests, there could not be much
advantage in having an occasional intruder.
(26) Var. lec. Haman (R. Han. cf. MS.M.).
(27) A heathen.
(28) For the Sabbath.
(29) His right to the use of the alley.
(30) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(31) As a result of the arrangement the residents
would be enabled to move (a) within the alley any
objects that rested in it at the time the Sabbath
had set in and (b) objects from the house of the
individual, in favor of whom they had renounced
their rights, into the alley and from the alley into
his house. In the absence of the arrangement they
would have been deprived even of these limited
privileges (cf. Shah. 130b). The prohibition,
however, to move objects from their own houses
into the alley and vice versa would still remain in
force (cf. infra 69b).
(32) Why a heathen imposes no restrictions on an
individual Israelite that lives with him in the same
courtyard or alley.
(33) By one of the scholars. Cur. edd., they said to
him, is wanting from MS.M.
(34) Hence the effectiveness of the suggested
arrangement.
(35) Of Abaye.
(36) Lit., said to him.

Eruvin 64a
If so,1 are you not abolishing the law of erub
in that alley? They might prepare an
erub.2 Would It not then be said that an
erub is effective even where a heathen is a

47

ERUVIN 53a-79a
resident in the place? An announcement
might be made.3 An announcement for the
children?4
Rather, said Raba, let one of them5
persuade him6 and borrow a place from him
on which he shall put down something, so
that7 he assumes the status of his hired
laborer or retainer concerning whom Rab
Judah laid down in the name of Samuel:
Even his8 hired laborer and even his retainer9
may contribute his share to the erub10 and
this alone is sufficient.11
Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the ruling if
there were12 five hired labourers13 or live
retainers?14 The other replied: If the
Rabbis have laid down that one's hired
laborer or retainer is regarded as a
householder in order that the law might be
relaxed,15 would they also maintain that a
hired laborer or retainer has a similar status
in order that the law might be restricted?16
[Reverting to] the main text: Rab Judah laid
down in the name of Samuel: Even his hired
laborer and even his retainer may contribute
his share to the erub, and this alone is
sufficient R. Nahman observed: How
excellent a ruling is this.
Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: He
who has drunk a quarter of a log17 of wine
must not give a legal decision. This ruling
observed R. Nahman, is not a very fine one,
because in my own case, before I drink a
quarter of a log of wine my mind is not
clear.
Said Raba to him:18 Why did the Master
speak in such a manner?19 Did not R. Aha b.
Hanina in fact state, What is the exposition
of the Scriptural text: But he that keepeth
company with harlots loses his substance?20
Whosoever says: "This ruling is a fine one21
or "That ruling is not a fine one" loses the
substance of the Torah? I withdraw, the
other replied.
Rabbah son of R. Huna ruled: One who is
under the influence of drink must not pray,

but if he did pray his prayer is regarded as a

proper one. An intoxicated man must not
pray, and if he did pray his prayer is an
abomination. How are we to understand the
expression of One who is under the influence
of drink, and how that of an intoxicated
man?
As follows: When R.22 Abba23 b. Shumani24
and R. Menashya b. Jeremiah of Difti25 were
taking leave from each other at the ford of
the river Yopati they suggested, Let each one
of us say something that the other has never
heard before, for Mari son of R. Huna26 laid
down: The best form of taking leave of a
friend is to tell him27 a point of the halachah,
because he would remember him for it.
What is to be understood, one of them
began, by "one who is under the influence of
drink" and what by "an intoxicated man"?
The former is one who is able to speak in the
presence of a king,28 the latter is one who is
unable to speak in the presence of a king.
What, the other began, should he who took
possession of the property of a proselyte29 do
that he shall be worthy of retaining it? Let
him purchase with it30 a scroll of the Law.31
R. Shesheth said: Even
(1) That renunciation alone is deemed to be
sufficient to enable the residents to enjoy the
privileges mentioned.
(2) Although it would bring them no material
benefit.
(3) That the erub is ineffective, that with the
exception of the one resident, in whose favor the
others had renounced their rights, all are
forbidden to carry any objects from their houses
into the alley and vice versa, and that only within
the alley, which on account of the renunciation
assumed the status of a private domain, is the
movement of objects permitted.
(4) Sc. what is the use of an announcement of
which the rising generation would be unaware.
The new generation, ignorant of the terms of the
announcement, would naturally assume that an
erub is effective even where a heathen is one of
the residents.
(5) Of the residents.
(6) The heathen resident in the alley.
(7) By becoming a tenant to the heathen's
courtyard.
(8) A heathen's.
(9) If he is an Israelite.

48

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(10) For the alley.
(11) To enable all the residents to move objects
from their houses into the alley and vice versa.
(12) In a heathen's house.
(13) Cf. MS.M.
(14) Each one of whom occupied a room or a
garret in it, and one of whom had forgotten to
contribute his share to the erub for the alley.
Since, it is asked, in respect of enabling the house
in which he lives to be joined with the others in
one erub he is regarded as its householder, is he
equally regarded as a householder the absence of
whose share from an erub restricts the use of the
entire alley?
(15) I.e., that the erub shall be effective.
(16) Of course not. As all doubtful questions in the
laws of erub are decided in favor of the more
lenient view, a hired laborer or retainer cannot be
regarded as a householder wherever he failed to
contribute to the erub of the alley.
(17) v. Glos.
(18) R. Nahman.
(19) Criticizing traditional rulings.
(20) Prov. XXIX, 3.
(21) harlots is read as this is fine.
(22) Lit., like that of R.
(23) Var. lec. Rabbah (En Jacob).
(24) Var. lec. Rabbah b. Shimi (MS.M.).
(25) V. marg. glos., cur. edd., Gifty. MS.M. omits
the word.
(26) Var. lec., Mari son of R. Huna son of R.
Jeremiah b. Abba (cf. Ber. 31a).
(27) Lit., a man shall not depart from his friend
except from the midst of.
(28) Sc. is able to collect his thoughts if suddenly
confronted by a high personage whom he fears or
reveres.
(29) Who died without any Jewish issue and thus
had no legal heirs.
(30) With the proceeds of a portion of the
property.
(31) The pious act will protect him from loss.

Eruvin 64b
a husband [should act in a similar manner]
with his wife's estate.
Raba said: Even a man who engaged in trade
and made a large profit should act in a
similar manner.
R. Papa said: Even he who has found
something [should act in the same manner].
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Even if he had only

arranged for the writing of one pair of1

tefillin.2
In connection with this R. Hanin [or, as some
say: R. Hanina] stated: What is the
Scriptural proof?3 It is written: And Israel
vowed a vow, etc.4
Rami b. Abba5 stated: A mil's walk or a little
sleep removes the effects of wine.
Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b.
Abbuha: This applies only to one who has
drunk one6 quarter of a log, but if one has
drunk more than a quarter, a walk would
only cause him more fatigue, and sleep would
produce more intoxication. But does a mil's
walk remove the effects of wine?
Was it not in fact taught: It once happened
that R. Gamaliel was riding on an ass when
traveling from Akko to Chezib while R. Ila'i
was following behind him. Finding a gluskin7
on the road he8 said to him, Ila'i, pick tip the
gluskin from the road. Later he met a
heathen. Mabgai,9 he said to him, take
away that loaf from Ila'i.
R. Ila'i thereupon approached him,10 and
asked where are you from? I am, the
other replied: from the station keepers11
settlements. And what is your name? My
name is Mabgai. Did R. Gamaliel ever
know you? No, the other replied. At that
moment we discovered that R. Gamaliel
divined by the holy spirit and, at the same
time, we learned three things: We learned
that12 eatables13 may not be passed by,14
that15 the majority of travelers must be
followed;16 and that17 it is permitted to derive
benefit18 from a heathen's leavened bread
after the Passover.19
When he20 arrived at Chezib a man
approached him and asked for his vow to be
absolved. Have we, he asked the person
who accompanied him,21 perchance drunk a
quarter of a log of Italian wine? Yes, the
other replied. In that case, he said: let him
walk behind us until the effect of our wine is

49

ERUVIN 53a-79a
removed. The man walked behind them for
three mils until he20 reached the Ladder of
Tyre.22 Having arrived at the Ladder of Tyre,
R. Gamaliel alighted from his ass, wrapped
himself in his cloak, sat down and disallowed
his vow. At that time we learned many
things: We learned that a quarter of a log of
Italian wine causes intoxication; that an
intoxicated man may not decide legal
questions; that a journey causes the effects of
wine to be removed, and that absolution from
vows may not be granted while riding,
walking, or standing, but must be done
sitting. At all events, were not Three mils
mentioned here?23
Italian wine is different24 since its powers of
intoxication are greater.25 But did not R.
Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b.
Abbuha, This applies only to one who has
drunk one quarter of a log, but if one has
drunk more than a quarter, a walk would
only cause him more fatigue, and sleep would
produce more intoxication?26
A rider is in a different position.27 Now that
you have arrived at this,28 no objection29 can
be raised against Rami b. Abba30 either, since
a rider is in a different position.31 But [the
law,]32 surely, is not so; for did not R.
Nahman say: Absolution from vows may be
granted while walking, standing or
riding?33
This is a point at issue between Tannas, one34
holding that35 an opening for regret must be
discovered36 while the other37 holds that no
opening for regret is required;38 for39 Rabbah
b. Bar Hana related in the name of R.
Johanan: what opening did R. Gamaliel
suggest to that man? There is that speaketh
like the piercings of a sword, but the tongue
of the wise is health,40 he that speaketh a
vow deserves to be pierced by the sword,41
but the tongue of the wise42 is health.43
The Master said that eatables may not be
passed by. R. Johanan laid down in the
name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: This applies
only to the earlier generations when the

daughters of Israel did not freely indulge44 in

witchcraft, but in the later generations when
the daughters of Israel freely indulged in
witchcraft one may pass them by. A Tanna
taught: Whole loaves45 may be passed by but
not crumbs. Said R. Assi to R. Ashi: But do
they not practice witchcraft with crumbs? Is
it not in fact written in Scripture: And ye
have profaned Me46 among My People for
handfuls of barley and for crumbs of
bread?47 These48 they received as a fee.49
R. Shesheth citing R. Eleazar b. Azariah
observed:
(1) Lit., he wrote with them, sc. paid for, out of
the wealth or property he had acquired.
(2) V. Glos.
(3) That the performance of a pious deed has a
favorable effect on one's fortunes.
(4) Num. XXI, 2, the conclusion of the text
showing that as a result of the vow Israel expected
to be victorious in their struggle against the
Canaanites.
(5) Var. lec. R. Aha (cf. Sanh. 22b).
(6) So MS.M. omitting the contents. This is
also the reading in the quotation infra.
(7) An expensive loaf made of a certain kind of
white flour.
(8) R. Gamaliel.
(9) A Samaritan proper name common among
heathens (cf. Mak. 11a).
(10) The heathen.
(11) Burgonin, pl. of burgoni, keeper or tenant of
a station for travelers.
(12) Since R. Ila'i was requested to pick up the
loaf.
(13) Lying on the ground.
(14) But must be picked up.
(15) Since the loaf was given away to a heathen.
(16) The majority having been heathens the loaf
must be assumed to have been dropped by one of
them and, therefore, forbidden to an Israelite.
(17) This incident occurred after the Passover;
and the loaf was nevertheless presented to a
heathen.
(18) The recipient of the loaf would naturally be
grateful for the gift and likely to repay it by some
other act of kindness.
(19) Which is forbidden in the case of an
Israelite's leavened bread.
(20) R. Gamaliel.
(21) R. Ila'i.
(22) Scala Tyriorum, a promontory south of Tyre.
(23) How then could Rami b. Abba maintain that
a one mil's walk is enough?
(24) From other wines.

50

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(25) Hence a longer journey is necessary.
(26) And since Italian wine is stronger than others
one quarter of a log of it would have the same
effect as a larger quantity of the others.
(27) From that of a pedestrian. The injurious
consequences of a walk would not affect him.
(28) To the drawing of a distinction between
riding and walking.
(29) From the statement that three mils are
necessary to remove the influence of drink.
(30) Who spoke of one mil only.
(31) While for a pedestrian one mil is sufficient, a
rider, whose exertion is less, requires three mils.
(32) With reference to the absolution of vows.
(33) Ned. 77b.
(34) With whom R. Gamaliel is in agreement.
(35) Before a Sage may absolve one from a vow.
(36) Sc. a valid ground must be found to make the
man regret his vow from the very outset. In order
to discover such a ground careful thinking is
necessary and this is only possible when one is
comfortably seated.
(37) Who allows the granting of absolution in any
position.
(38) Absolution may be granted to any person who
applies for it irrespective of whether he regrets
ever having made the vow or not.
(39) As proof that R. Gamaliel holds the same
view as the former Tanna.
(40) Prov. Xli, 18.
(41) Because he might not be able to fulfill his
obligations.
(42) That of the Sage who grants absolution.
(43) He restores the sinner to a healthy moral
condition. With this exposition R. Gamaliel was
able to convince the man of his folly and to make
his express his sincere regrets for ever having
made his vow.
(44) Lit., broken through.
(45) Since witchcraft may be suspected.
(46) By the practice of witchcraft (v. Rashi).
(47) Ezek. XIII, 19.
(48) The crumbs mentioned by Ezekiel.
(49) For their services in the art of witchcraft.
With these crumbs, however, no witchcraft was
performed.

Eruvin 65a
I could justify the exemption from judgment
of all the [Israelite] world since the day of the
destruction of the Temple until the present
time, for it is said in Scripture: Therefore
hear now this, thou afflicted and drunken but
not with wine.1

he committed a transgression involving the

penalty of death he is to be executed, and if
he committed one involving flogging he is to
be flogged; the general rule being that he is
regarded as a sober man in all respects
except that he is exempt front prayer.2 [Does
not this3 contradict the view of R. Shesheth]?
By the expression,4 I could justify the
exemption that he used he also meant
exemption from judgment [for the lack] of
[devotion5 in] prayer.
R. Hanina said: This3 applies only to one who
did not reach the stage of Lot's drunkenness,6
but one who did reach such a stage is exempt
from all responsibilities.
R. Hanina observed: Against him who passes
by7 the Shield8 in the time of haughtiness9
troubles will be closed and sealed about him,
for it is said in Scripture: His scales10 are his
pride, shut up together as with a close11
seal.12 What proof is there that afek13
signifies passing by?
Since it is written in Scripture: My brethren
have dealt deceitfully as a brook, as the
channel13 of brooks that pass by.14
R. Johanan said: The statement15 was
Against him who does not utter.16 What is
the
proof
that
mapik17
signifies
manifestation?18
Since it is written in Scripture: And the
channels19 of waters appeared, and the
foundations of the world were laid bare.20
Observe! The Scriptural texts provide equal
proof for the one Master as well as for the
other Master; wherein then lies the difference
between them?21
The difference between them is [the propriety
of the practice] of R. Shesheth; for R.
Shesheth entrusted [the task of waking him
from] his sleep to his attendant. One Master22
upholds the view of R. Shesheth while the
other Master23 does not.24

An objection was raised: The sale or

purchase of an intoxicated person is valid. If

51

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Hiyya b. Ashi citing Rab ruled: A person
whose mind is not at ease must not pray,
since it is said: He who is in distress shall
give no decisions.25 R. Hanina did not pray
on a day when he was agitated. It is written,
he said: He who is in distress shall give no
decisions.26
Mar Ukba did not attend27 court on a
shutha28 day.
R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Legal study29
requires as much clearness30 as a north wind
day.31
Abaye remarked: If my [foster] mother32 had
told me: Bring me the kutha,33 I would not
have been able to study.34 If, remarked
Raba,35 a louse bit me l could not study.34
Seven garments for the seven days of the
week36 were prepared for Mar son of Rabina
by his mother.
Rab Judah observed: Night was created for
naught but sleep.
R. Simeon b. Lakish observed: The moon37
was created only to facilitate study.
When R. Zera was told, You are exceedingly
well versed in your studies, he replied: They
are the result of day work.
A daughter38 of R. Hisda once asked R.
Hisda,39 Would not the Master like to sleep a
little? There will soon come, he replied:
days that are long and short40 and we shall
have time to sleep long.
R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: we are day
workers.
R. Aha b. Jacob borrowed41 and repaid.42
R. Eliezer ruled: A man who returns from a
journey43 must not pray for three days, for it
is said in Scripture: And I gathered them
together to the river that turneth to Ahava;44
and there we encamped three days, and I
viewed45 the people.46

On returning from a journey Samuel's father

refrained from prayer for three days. Samuel
did not pray in a house that contained
alcoholic drink.47
R. Papa did not pray in a house that
contained fish-hash.47
R. Hanina observed: He who allows himself
to be pacified when lie is taking wine
possesses some of the characteristics of his
Creator, for it is said in Scripture: And the
Lord smelled the sweet savour;48 and... said...
I will not again curse the ground any more
for man's sake.49
R. Hiyya observed: He who retains a clear
mind under the influence of wine possesses
the characteristics of the seventy elders; for
the numerical value of yayin50 is seventy51
and so is also the numerical value of sod,52
so that when wine goes in counsel departs.53
R. Hanin54 observed: Wine was created for
the sole purpose of comforting mourners and
rewarding the wicked;55 for it is said: Give
strong drink unto him that is ready to
perish,56 and wine unto the bitter in soul.57
R. Hanin58 b. Papa stated: A person in whose
house wine is not poured like water has not
attained the state of blessedness; for it is said:
And He will bless thy bread and thy water,59
as the bread spoken of is a food that may be
bought with the money of the Second Tithe so
is the water60 a liquid that may be bought
with the money of the Second Tithe. Now
such a liquid is of course,61 wine,62 and yet it
is called water.
(1) Isa. LI, 21. Having been described as
drunken prior to the destruction of the Temple,
Israel, still bearing the stigma, cannot be held
responsible for their actions.
(2) Tosef. Ter. III.
(3) The ruling that, with the exception of the duty
of prayer, all intoxicated man is in all respects
regarded as a sober man.
(4) Lit., what.
(5) Cf. Rashi.

52

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(6) A state of complete unconsciousness (cf. Gen.
XIX, 30ff).
(7) rt. .
(8) I.e., omits to read the Amidah benedictions
(cf. P.B. pp. 44ff) the first of which concludes with
the Shield of Abraham.
(9) When in a state of intoxication.
(10) rendered as passing by (cf. supra
n. 2) the benediction concluding with Shield, (
).
(11) interpreted as trouble.
(12) Job XLI, 7.
(13) , rt. .
(14) E.V., overflow, Job VI, 15.
(15) Reported by R. Hanina.
(16) The benedictions mentioned.
(17) rt. .
(18) Sc. the utterance of the benedictions.
(19) rt. .
(20) Ps. XVIII, 16.
(21) Seeing that according to both views the law in
practice is exactly the same, what matters it
whether the rt. is
used as a positive in the sense of passing by or as
a negative, does not utter?
(22) R. Johanan.
(23) R. Hanina who uses the expression of passing
by.
(24) In his opinion a man's mind must be
absolutely tranquil and clear during his prayers.
A man who does not awake on his own cannot
have a clear mind and is consequently unfit for
prayer. (For another interpretation of the passage
v. R. Han. and cf. Tosaf. s.v. a.l.).
(25) M.T. has no such verse. R. Tam. (Tosaf. s.v.
a.l.) attempts to trace it to Job XXXVI, 19,
rendering as thy prayer and as here
interpreted in distress.
(26) V. prev. note.
(27) Lit., go out to.
(28) Severe south wind (Rashi), east wind (Ar.),
cloudy (R. Han.).
(29) Or a legal decision.
(30) Of mind. Aliter (cf. prev. n.); Must be as
clear.
(31) Istana. Cf. B.B., Sonc. ed. p. 568, n. 9 and
Yeb. 72a.
(32) V. Kid. 31b.
(33) A dish of bread-crusts, sour milk and salt.
(34) Sc. the slightest disturbance of his studies
would have distracted his mind and prevented
him from concentrating on the work in hand.
(35) Var. lec. Rabina (En Jacob).
(36) Thus providing for his cleanliness and
comfort and facilitating his study.
(37) Or moonlight.
(38) MS.M., En Jacob and others read: the
daughters.
(39) Who spent his nights in prayer and study.

(40) The days in the grave are long in quantity but

short in quality. In the grave one cannot continue
his studies or perform any of the other good deeds.
(41) From the day-time.
(42) In the night. Sc. if for some reason he had to
curtail his studies during the day he made up the
deficiency in the night.
(43) Which usually involves danger, fatigue and
distraction of the mind.
(44) Cur. edd., Ahava.
(45) Lit., and I understood.
(46) Ezra VIII, 15; he was unable to view or
understand them before on account of the
fatigue and distractions caused by the journey.
(47) He could not stand its pungent odor which
disturbed his devotions.
(48) Smell and taste are regarded as being on a
par.
(49) Gen. VIII, 21, which shows that the Creator
allowed himself to be pacified when enjoying, so to
speak, a sweet savor (cf. prev. n.).
(50) wine.
(51) It is composed of the letters 10, + 10, + 50,
= 70. Lit., wine was given in seventy letters.
MS.M. omits letters.
(52) counsel, consists of the letters , 60 + , 6
+ 4 = 70.
(53) Sc. the man who drinks wine loses the ability
for clear thinking. Any man, therefore, who is able
to retain the clarity of his mind in such
circumstances is regarded as being on a par with
the seventy elders, the Sanhedrin, the source of
clear thought and counsel.
(54) MS.M. Johanan.
(55) For the little good they may do in this world.
(56) Sc. the wicked.
(57) The mourner; Prov. XXXI, 6.
(58) MS.M. Hanina.
(59) Ex. XXIII, 25.
(60) Since it was mentioned in the same context as
the bread.
(61) Lit., and what is it?
(62) Since water like salt (cf. supra 26b) may not
be bought with the money of the Second Tithe.

Eruvin 65b
If, therefore, it is poured in one's house like
water that house has attained to the state of1
blessedness, otherwise it has not.2
R. Ila'i3 said: By three things may a person's
character be determined: By his cup,4 by his
purse5 and by his anger; and some say: By his
laughter also.

53

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: An
Israelite and a heathen once lived in the inner
of two courtyards and one Israelite lived in
the outer one,6 and when the case7 came up
for discussion before Rabbi he forbade the
use of the latter,8 and when it was submitted
to R. Hiyya he also forbade its use.8
Rabbah and R. Joseph were once sitting at
the end [of a discourse] of R. Shesheth's
session9 when the latter on sitting down
suggested that10 Rab explained his traditional
ruling to be in agreement with the view of R.
Meir;11 and Rabbah nodded his head.12 That
two great men,13 exclaimed R. Joseph,14
should make a mistake in such a simple
thing! If the ruling is in agreement with R.
Meir why was it required that all Israelite
shall live in the outer courtyard?15 And
should you reply that the case just happened
to be of such a mature, was not Rab asked, [it
could be pointed out,] whether the inner
Israelite tenant could use his own place16 and
he replied that he was permitted?17
In agreement with whose view then?18 Is it
suggested to be in agreement with that of R.
Eliezer b. Jacob?19 Did he not, [it may be
retorted,] rule:20 UNLESS THERE ARE
TWO
ISRAELITES
WHO
IMPOSE
RESTRICTIONS
UPON
EACH
OTHER?21
Is it22 then in agreement with R. Akiba who
ruled: A man who is permitted freedom of
movement in his own place23 causes the
restriction of free movement on others in a
place that is not his?24 What need was
there,25 [it may be asked,] to have a
heathen,26 seeing that even one Israelite alone
would have imposed the restrictions?
R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: The
ruling22 in fact is in agreement with R.
Eliezer b. Jacob27 and R. Akiba,28 but29 here
we are dealing with a case where [the two
Israelites] joined in an erub. Hence the
reason of the prohibition that there was a
heathen30 who imposed the restrictions, but

where there was no heathen there is none to

impose restrictions upon them.
R. Eleazar31 enquired of Rab: What is your
ruling where all Israelite and a heathen lived
in the outer courtyard and one Israelite lived
in the inner one? [Is the enactment32
applicable only] there,33 for the reason that it
is usual34 [for an Israelite] to live [with a
heathen] since [the former knows] that the
heathen would be afraid [to use violence
against him] as he expects the other
Israelite35 to come and demand,36 Where is
that Israelite that lived with you?37 but [not]
here where the heathen could well reply,38
He went out and disappeared;39 or is it
likely [that the enactment extended also to
such a case since] here also [the heathen
would be] afraid [to, use violence against his
neighbor] as he imagines that the Israelite40
might at any moment pass41 and detect him
in the act?42 The other replied: Give to a
wise man, and he will be yet wiser.43
Resh Lakish and the students of R. Hanina
once happened to be in a certain inn44 while
its tenant was away but its landlord was
present. Is it proper,45 they discussed, to
rent from him46 [the heathen's share in the
courtyard]?47 Wherever the landlord is not
entitled to terminate the lease48 there could
be no question that we must not rent it; the
question arises only where he is entitled to
terminate it.48 May we rent it because he has
the power to terminate the lease or is it
possible that, since at present at any rate he
did not yet terminate it, we may not rent
it?
Resh Lakish said to them: Let us49 rent it50
and when we arrive at our Masters in the
South we might submit the question to them.
On submitting the question51 to R. Afes he
replied: You have acted well in renting it.
R. Hanina52 b. Joseph, R. Hiyya b. Abba and
K. Assi once happened to come to a certain
inn whither53 a heathen, the owner of the inn,
had returned on the Sabbath.54 Is it
permissible,55 they discoursed, to rent from

54

ERUVIN 53a-79a
him his share? Is the law of renting like that
of the preparation of an erub,56 so that as an
erub must be prepared while it is yet day,57
must renting take place while it is yet day;57
or is the law of renting like that of the
renunciation of one's domain, so that as the
right to one's domain may be renounced even
on the Sabbath58 so may renting also take
place on the Sabbath?59
R. Hanina b. Joseph said: Let us rent it,
while R. Assi said: Let us not rent it. Let
us, said R. Hiyya b. Abba to them, rely on
the words of the old man and rent it. When
they subsequently came to R. Johanan and
submitted the question to him he told them:
(1) Lit., there is.
(2) Lit., and if not, not
(3) MS.M., Ela.
(4) Sc. by the effect of drink on his mind, or by the
amount he consumes.
(5) The sums of money he spends on charitable
causes or the manner of his dealing in money
matters.
(6) Through which the tenants of the former had a
right of passage.
(7) Of the permissibility of the movement of
objects on the Sabbath in the outer courtyard.
(8) Sc. the movement of objects in it is forbidden
on the Sabbath unless in addition to a joint erub
by the two Israelites the heathen has also let his
share in it to its tenant.
(9)[ ; the phrase seems to be a technical
phrase denoting a special session at the end of a
series of lectures devoted to the reviewing of the
conclusions reached during the course, v. Kaplan
J., The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p.
257.].
(10) Lit., like whom?
(11) The author of the ruling in the first clause of
our Mishnah which restricts the use of a
courtyard in which a heathen lived even if no
more than one Israelite lived in it with him.
(12) In consent.
(13) So MS.M. Cur. edd. add., like our Rabbis.
(14) MS. M. Abaye.
(15) To bring up the number of Israelites to two.
According to R. Meir (cf. supra p. 455, n. 14) the
heathen would have imposed the restrictions even
in there had been only the one Israelite in his
courtyard.
(16) In the inner courtyard, sc. may he move
objects from his house into that courtyard and
vice versa?
(17) Which shows that the prohibition is restricted
to that courtyard alone in which no less than two

Israelites have a share. How then could it be

suggested that the ruling was in agreement with R.
Meir.
(18) Did Rab explain his reported ruling.
(19) The author of the ruling in the second clause
of our Mishnah.
(20) That a heathen causes no restrictions.
(21) As the two Israelites do not live in the same
courtyard, and as the inner tenant is permitted to
use his own courtyard, the latter could impose no
restrictions upon the former. Why then was the
use of the outer courtyard forbidden?
(22) Rab's reported ruling under discussion.
(23) As is the Israelite in the inner courtyard.
(24) Supra 59b, q.v. notes; and since the two
Israelites thus impose restrictions upon each other
the heathen also imposes restrictions upon them.
(25) For the imposition of restrictions,
(26) In the inner courtyard.
(27) That only where two Israelites impose
restrictions upon each other does a heathen's
tenancy affect their rights to the use of their
courtyard. Hence it is well permitted to the only
Israelite in the inner court freely to use that
courtyard in which he lives.
(28) According to whose view the inner Israelite
tenant, though he may freely use his own
courtyard, imposes restrictions on the use of the
outer courtyard.
(29) The reason why the tenancy of a heathen is
required if restrictions are to be imposed.
(30) Who impairs the validity of the erub of the
Israelites.
(31) V. marg. glos. Cur. edd., Eliezer.
(32) That a heathen tenant imposes restrictions on
his Israelite neighbors.
(33) In the previous case where an Israelite and a
heathen lived in the inner courtyard and one
Israelite lived in the outer one.
(34) In the circumstances described (cf. prev. n.).
(35) Who lived in the outer courtyard.
(36) Lit., now the Israelite would come and say to
me.
(37) He could not shake since his way out could
only he through the outer courtyard where its
tenant would have seen him.
(38) Lit., I would say to him,
(39) As no Israelite would in such circumstances
venture to live with a heathen in the same
courtyard no enactment (cf. supra n. 3) was
deemed necessary.
(40) The tenant of the inner courtyard.
(41) Through the outer courtyard on his way out.
(42) Lit., come and see me.
(43) Prov. IX, 9; Sc. the enactment applied to the
latter, as well as to the former case.
(44) In the courtyard of which lived two Israelites
and one heathen who rented his house from a
fellow heathen.
(45) Lit., what is it?

55

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(46) The landlord.
(47) In order that the movement of objects in it
shall be permitted on the Sabbath even if the
leaseholder returned before the termination of the
Sabbath.
(48) Before the clay of its expiration. Lit., remove
him.
(49) Since doubtful points in respect of the laws of
erub are to be decided in favor of the more
lenient view.
(50) And thus be entitled to the unrestricted use of
the courtyard.
(51) Lit., they came, asked.
(52) MS.M. Rabbah.
(53) After they had duly prepared their erub on
the Sabbath eve.
(54) No question would have arisen if he had not
returned since a heathen's right in a courtyard is
disregarded in his absence in the case of erub.
(Cf. R. Judah's ruling supra 86a).
(55) Lit., what is it?
(56) Lit., is one who rents like one who prepares
an erub.
(57) Of the Sabbath eve.
(58) Cf. supra 69b.
(59) And consequently one of them at least in
whose favor all the others would renounce their
rights could rent the heathen's share and thus be
entitled to the unrestricted use of the courtyard.
[This is not treated as a commercial transaction
but as the presentation of a mere gift, since its sole
object is to permit the movement of objects; Tosaf.
66a, s.v. ].

Eruvin 66a
You have acted well in renting the place.
The Nehardeans were astonished at this
decision.1 Could R. Johanan, [they argued,]
have given such a decision, seeing that R.
Johanan laid down that renting is subject to
the same law as that of the preparation of an
erub, which means, does it not, that as the
preparation of an erub must take place
while it is yet day so must renting also take
place while it is yet day?2
No;3 the meaning is that as an erub may be
prepared even with food that is worth less
than a perutah4 so may renting also be
effected even with less than a perutah,4 and
as an erub for a heathen's share is valid even
if effected through his hired laborer or
retainer5 so may his share be rented even
from his hired laborer or his retainer,6 and as

in the case of erub, if five tenants lived in

one courtyard,7 one of them may join in an
erub8 for all of them9 so also in the case of
renting, if five tenants10 lived in one
courtyard,11 one of them may rent the
heathen's share on behalf of all of them.
R. Eleazar was astonished at it.12
What, R. Zera asked: could have been the
cause of R. Eleazar's astonishment? That
such a great man as R. Zera, exclaimed R.
Shesheth, should not know why R. Eleazar
was astonished! His difficulty, [of course] was
a ruling of his Master Samuel who laid down:
Wherever tenants13 impose restrictions upon
one another but may14 join together in an
erub they may15 renounce their rights to
their shares in favor of one of them;16 where
they may14 join in an erub but17 do not
impose restrictions upon one another, or
when they do18 impose restrictions upon one
another but may not19 join in an erub, they
may not renounce their rights in favor of one
of them. Wherever tenants impose
restrictions upon one another but may join
together in an erub they may renounce their
rights to their shares in favor of one of them
as, for instance, in the case of two courtyards,
one within the other.20 Where they may join
in an erub but do not impose restrictions
upon one another... they may not renounce
their rights in favor of one of them as, for
instance, in the case of two courtyards21 that
have a common door between them.22
Now what case was intended to be included in
the statement, Where they do impose
restrictions upon one another but may not
join in an erub they may not renounce their
rights in favor of one of them? Was not this
meant to include the case of the heathen?23
Now,24 if the heathen had come home on the
Sabbath eve,25 could not his share have been
hired prior to the Sabbath?26
(1) Just attributed to R. Johanan.
(2) How then could it be asserted that R. Johanan
approved of the renting of the heathen's share on
the Sabbath?

56

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(3) Sc. the comparison was not intended, as
suggested, to restrict the laws of erub, but rather,
since in all questions of erub the lenient course is
followed, to relax them.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) If he was an Israelite (cf. supra 64a).
(6) Who was not an Israelite.
(7) Whose door opened into another courtyard.
(8) With the tenants of the other courtyard.
(9) Cf. infra 72b.
(10) Israelites.
(11) Where a heathen tenant also lived.
(12) At the decision supra to rent the heathen's
share on the Sabbath and to renounce the
individual Israelites rights in favor of one of
them.
(13) In the absence of an erub.
(14) If they wish.
(15) Where they have failed to prepare their erub
on the Sabbath eve.
(16) Thereby constituting the entire courtyard as
the domain of that one tenant and they in
consequence are enabled to move objects from
place to place within the courtyard as well as from
that tenant's house into the courtyard and vice
versa; the movement of objects from their own
houses into the courtyard and vice versa would, of
course, remain forbidden.
(17) Even in the absence of an erub.
(18) In the absence of an erub.
(19) Even if they desire it.
(20) The tenants of the inner courtyard, if they do
not join in an erub for their courtyard, restrict
the use of the outer courtyard by its tenants, on
account of the former's right of passage through
it. They may join in an erub with the outer
tenants if they desire to do so, by preparing one on
the Sabbath eve. They may, therefore, should they
even happen to have failed to prepare the erub on
the Sabbath eve, renounce their right of passage
through the outer courtyard in favor of its tenants
and thus remove the latter's restrictions upon its
use.
(21) Each of which has a door of its own to an
alley or a public domain.
(22) In addition to their other doors. The tenants
of these two courtyards may join in an erub if
they wish but, since each courtyard is selfcontained, they do not impose restrictions upon
one another even in the absence of an erub. As
renunciation of rights in a courtyard was
permitted only where the tenants impose
restrictions upon one another no renunciation is
here allowed.
(23) Who lived in a courtyard with two Israelites.
In such a case the two Israelites would impose
restrictions upon one another but could not join in
an erub on account of the heathen tenant.
(24) Since this case-was apparently intended.
(25) Lit., and if he came since yesterday.

(26) Lit., from yesterday. Of course it could.

Why then, since all erub could well be prepared
after the heathen's share had been hired, is this
case described as one where the tenants impose
restrictions but may not join in an erub?

Eruvin 66b
Consequently1 it must refer to a case where
the heathen came home on the Sabbath, and
in connection with this it was stated that
where they do impose restrictions upon one
another but may not join in an erub they
may not renounce their rights in favor of one
of them.2 This is conclusive.
I, observed R. Joseph, have never before
heard this reported ruling.3 Said Abaye to
him: You yourself have taught it to us4 and
you said it in connection with the following.
For Samuel said that no domain may be
renounced where two courtyards are
involved5 nor may it be renounced in the case
of a ruin,6 and you told us in connection with
it that when Samuel said that no domain
may be renounced where two courtyards are
involved he meant it to apply only to two
courtyards that7 had one door in common,8
but where one courtyard was within the
other,9 since the tenants impose restrictions
upon one another,10 they11 may also renounce
their rights.12 Could I, the former questioned,
have reported such a ruling in the name of
Samuel? Did not Samuel in fact state: In the
laws of erub we can only be guided13 by the
wording of our Mishnah ,14 [viz.,] the
tenants of one courtyard,15 but not those of
two courtyards?16
When you told us, the other explained, that
In the laws of erub we can only be guided
by the wording of our Mishnah you said It in
connection with the following: Since an alley
to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its
houses.17
[To turn to] the main text: Samuel ruled that
no domain may be renounced where two
courtyards are involved nor may it be
renounced in the case of a ruin.18 R. Johanan,
however, ruled: A domain may be renounced

57

ERUVIN 53a-79a
even where two courtyards are involved and
it may also be renounced in the case of a ruin.
And both19 had to be mentioned. For if the
two courtyards only had been mentioned it
might have been assumed that only in this
case did Samuel maintain his view, since the
use of one is quite independent of that of the
other,20 but that in the case of a ruin, the use
of which is common to the two tenants,21 he
agrees with R. Johanan.22 And if the latter23
only had been stated it might have been
presumed that in this case only did R.
Johanan24 mention his view, but that in the
former case25 he agrees with Samuel. Hence
both were required.
Abaye stated: Samuel's ruling that26 no
domain may be renounced where two
courtyards are involved27 applies only28 to
two courtyards that had one door in common
but where two courtyards were one within
the other, since the tenants impose
restrictions upon one another, they may also
renounce their rights.29
Raba stated: Even in the case of two
courtyards one of which was within the other
the tenants may sometimes renounce their
rights and sometimes30 they may not
renounce them. How is this [possible]?
If the tenants31 deposited their erub in the
outer courtyard and one tenant, whether of
the inner courtyard or of the outer
courtyard, forgot to participate in the erub,
the use of both courtyards is restricted,32 if
they deposited their erub in the inner
courtyard and one tenant of the inner
courtyard forgot to participate in the erub,
the use of both courtyards is restricted.32
If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard
forgot to participate in the erub, the use of
the inner courtyard is unrestricted33 while
that of the outer one is restricted.34 If the
tenants deposited their erub in the outer
courtyard and one tenant, whether of the
inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard,
forgot to participate in the erub, the use of
both courtyards is restricted. For in whose

favor could this tenant of

courtyard35 renounce his right?

the

inner

Should he renounce it36 in favor of the

tenants of the inner courtyard?37 But their
erub, surely, is not with them!38
Should he39 renounce his right40 in favor of
the tenants of the outer courtyard also?41
Surely no domain may be renounced where
two courtyards are involved!42 As to the
tenant of the outer courtyard43 too in whose
favor could he renounce his right?
Should he renounce it36 in favor of the
tenants of the outer courtyard? There would
still remain the tenants of the inner
courtyard44 who45 would impose the
restrictions upon them!
Should he renounce it in favor of the tenants
of the inner courtyard also?46 Surely no
domain may be renounced where two
courtyards are involved!42 If they deposited
their erub in the inner courtyard and one
tenant of the inner courtyard forgot to
participate in the erub, the use of both
courtyards is restricted. For in whose favor
could this tenant of the inner courtyard47
renounce his right?
Should he renounce it48 in favor of the
tenants of the inner courtyard? There would
still remain the tenants of the outer
courtyard who49 would impose restrictions
upon them!
Should he50 renounce his right51 in favor of
the tenants of the outer courtyard also?52
Surely no domain may be renounced where
two courtyards are involved!53
(1) Since it is a case where they may not join in an
erub.
(2) Which proves that renunciation of individual
shares in favor of one of the tenants is permissible
only where the tenants were allowed to prepare an
erub on the Sabbath eve. Hence R. Eleazar's
astonishment (supra 66a).
(3) Of Samuel, that in the case of two courtyards
the tenants of the inner one may renounce their

58

ERUVIN 53a-79a
right of passage through the outer one in favor of
the tenants of the latter.
(4) R. Joseph, as the result of a serious illness, lost
his memory and Abaye who was a disciple of his
often reminded him of his own teachings. Cf.
supra 10a notes.
(5) Lit., from courtyard to courtyard. This is
explained presently.
(6) That intervened between two houses whose
doors opened into it. Only in the case of houses
that opened into a courtyard, which is a
recognized place for the use of tenants, was
renunciation of one's right to one's share in that
courtyard permitted in order to enable (a) the
tenant in whose favor the renunciation was made
to move objects from his house to the courtyard
and vice versa, and (b) the other tenant or tenants
to move objects from place to place within the
courtyard. As a ruin, however, is not usually a
place which tenants would use no renunciation of
one's domain was permitted and no objects,
therefore, may be moved either from the houses
into it or from it into the houses unless a proper
crib has been duly prepared.
(7) In addition to the door each had towards an
alley or a public domain.
(8) Lit., between them. Since each of the two
groups of tenants, by closing the communicating
door, is well able freely to use its own courtyard,
irrespective of any action on the part of the other
group, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to
relax the law in their favor and to allow
renunciation.
(9) And the inner tenants cannot possibly gain
access to the alley or public domain except
through the outer courtyard.
(10) On account of the right of way.
(11) The inner tenants, if they prepared no erub
even among themselves.
(12) Of passage, to which they are entitled in the
outer courtyard, and the tenants of the latter are
thereby enabled to use their courtyard.
(13) Sc. no further relaxation of the law is
permitted.
(14) The Mishnah infra 69b of which Samuel
presumably spoke.
(15) May, if one of them forgot to join in their
erub, renounce their rights in their courtyard in
favor of that man.
(16) How then could this be reconciled with the
ruling of Samuel that the law of renunciation
applies only to two courtyards?
(17) Mishnah infra 73b. Cf. the discussion infra
74a.
(18) Supra q.v. notes.
(19) Courtyards and ruin.
(20) Lit., its use is alone, the one courtyard is not
used by the tenants of the other. As the tenants are
independent of, and consequently impose no
restrictions upon one another it was quite proper

that the law of renunciation should not be

extended to them.
(21) Lit., one use for both of them, the two
tenants who lived on either side of the ruin, who
do impose restrictions upon each other.
(22) That renunciation is permitted.
(23) A ruin.
(24) For the reason given supra n. 2.
(25) To which the reason stated supra n. 1 is
applicable.
(26) Lit., that which Samuel said.
(27) Supra q.v. notes.
(28) Lit., he did not say them, but.
(29) Cf. supra p. 462, nn. 2ff.
(30) Though they impose restrictions upon one
another.
(31) Of both courtyards.
(32) Sc. renunciation is of no avail; as will be
explained anon.
(33) Because the tenants of the outer courtyard,
whose erub was deposited in it and who in
consequence were regarded as its tenants, are
permitted to renounce their rights in favor of the
inner tenants whose use they would otherwise
have restricted on account of the restrictions in
their own courtyard occasioned by the outer
tenant who failed to participate with them in their
erub.
(34) As explained in the prev. n. ad fin.
(35) Who failed to participate in the erub.
(36) The right to his share in his courtyard.
(37) So that they might thereby be permitted to
the unrestricted use of their courtyard though the
tenants of the outer
courtyard, on account of his right of way, would
not be allowed the unrestricted use of their own
courtyard.
(38) Since it was not deposited in their own
courtyard but in the outer one; and should they be
severed from it they would remain with no erub
at all and, in consequence, would be subject to all
the restrictions that tenants impose upon one
another.
(39) The inner tenant who did not participate in
the erub.
(40) Of way in the outer courtyard.
(41) And by eliminating himself in this manner
from both courtyards enable both groups of
tenants to have the unrestricted use of the
courtyards.
(42) Lit., from courtyard to courtyard, sc.
according to Samuel no tenant of one courtyard
may renounce his right to his share in favor of a
tenant of another courtyard even though, in the
absence of such renunciation, he imposes
restrictions upon him.
(43) Who failed to participate in the erub.
(44) Whose erub has been invalidated on account
of this tenant's forgetfulness.

59

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(45) Since they are restricted in the use of their
own courtyard.
(46) V. supra n. 7.
(47) Who failed to participate in the erub.
(48) The right to his share in his courtyard.
(49) On account of their participation in the erub
that was deposited in the inner courtyard, which
has conferred upon them the status of tenants.
(50) The inner tenant who did not participate in
the erub.
(51) Of way in the outer courtyard.
(52) V. supra p. 464, n. 7.
(53) V. supra p. 464, n. 8.

gentiles came and put up a fence before their

doors10 on the Sabbath?11 According to him
who holds that no renunciation of a domain is
valid where two courtyards are involved12 the
question does not arise. For13 if no
renunciation is permitted where two
courtyards are involved even where an erub
could, if desired, have been prepared on the
previous day14 how much less could
renunciation be permitted here15 where16 no
erub could have been prepared on the
previous day even if desired.

Eruvin 67a
If, however, a tenant of the outer courtyard
forgot to participate in the erub the use of
is
certainly
the
inner
courtyard1
unrestricted,2 since its tenants3 might close
its door4 and so enjoy its use, while that of
the outer one is restricted.5
Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to Raba: But
why should the use of both courtyards be
restricted where a tenant of the inner one
forgot to join in the erub.? Could not the
tenant of the inner courtyard renounce his
right in favor of the tenants of the inner
courtyard and the tenants of the outer one
could then come and enjoy unrestricted use
together with them?
In agreement with whose view, [retorted
Raba, is this objection raised? Apparently] in
agreement with that of R. Eliezer who ruled
that it is not necessary to renounce one's
right in favor of every individual tenant,6
but I spoke in accordance with the view of
the Rabbis who ruled6 that it is necessary to
renounce ones right in favor of every
individual tenant.7
Whenever R. Hisda and R. Shesheth met
each other, the lips of the former trembled at
the latter's extensive knowledge of
Mishnahs,8 while the latter trembled all over
his body at the former's keen dialectics.9
R. Hisda once asked R. Shesheth: What is
your ruling where two houses were situated
on the two sides of a public domain and

The question arises only on the view of hin,

who ruled,12 "A domain may be renounced
even where two courtyards are involved".17
Do we say that only there where they could, if
desired, have prepared an erub on the
previous18 day is one also allowed to
renounce one's domain, but here19 where
they could not prepare an erub on the
previous day20 one is not allowed to renounce
one's domain either; or is it possible that
there is no difference between the two
cases?21
No renunciation is permitted, the other
replied.22 What is your ruling, the former
again asked: where the gentile23 died on the
Sabbath?24 According to him who ruled that
it was permitted to rent,25 the question does
not arise. For if two acts26 are permitted is
there any need to question whether one act
only27 is permitted?28 The question, however,
arises according to him who ruled that it was
not permitted to rent.29 Are only two acts30
forbidden31 but not one,27 or is it possible that
no difference is to be made between the two
cases? I maintain, the other replied:
that renunciation is permitted.32 Hamnuna,
however, ruled: renunciation33 is not
permitted.34
Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel:
If a gentile has a door of the minimum size of
four handbreadths by four that opened35 into
a valley, even though he leads camels and
wagons in and out all day through an alley,36
he does not restrict its use for the residents of
that alley. What is the reason? That door

60

ERUVIN 53a-79a
which he keeps exclusively for himself is the
one he prefers.37 The question was asked:
What is the ruling where it38 opened into a
karpaf?39
R. Nahman40 b. Ammi citing a tradition
replied:
(1) By its tenants.
(2) Even according to Samuel,
(3) In whose favor those of the outer one may well
renounce the right in their courtyard which they
have acquired solely through their erub (cf.
Rashi).
(4) That leads to the outer courtyard.
(5) Cf. supra p. 463, n. 14, ad fin. The renunciation
on the part of the outer tenants, it may be added,
is necessary only in accordance with the ruling of
R. Akiba. According to the view of the Rabbis no
renunciation is required v. infra 75b (Rashi and
Tosaf. a.l.).
(6) Cf. supra 26b.
(7) Since a tenant of one courtyard cannot
renounce his right in favor of a tenant of another
courtyard (as stated supra) the inner tell, [It
cannot renounce his right in favor of any of the
outer tenants and, consequently, his renunciation
in favor of his own neighbors alone cannot in any
way help towards the removal of the restrictions.
(8) Many of which appear to be contradictory to
each other and so offered R. Shesheth, who could
easily marshal them, an opportunity of
embarrassing R. Hisda by inviting him to
reconcile them.
(9) With which he could easily bewilder R.
Shesheth.
(10) Lit., and surrounded them, sc. fences were
erected on both sides of the doors of the houses
across the public domain so as to form an
enclosure into which both doors opened.
(11) Is one of the tenants permitted to move
objects from his house into the enclosure (cf.
supra 20a) if the other has renounced in his favor
the share he has in it?
(12) Supra 66b, q.v. notes.
(13) Lit., now that.
(14) Sc. on the Sabbath eve. From which it follows
(as explained supra) that where residents impose
no restrictions upon each other they are not
permitted to exercise the right of renunciation
even where they had the right to join in an erub.
(15) The case under consideration.
(16) In addition to the residents inability to
impose restrictions upon each other.
(17) From which it follows that renunciation is
permitted even where the residents concerned do
not impose restrictions upon each other.

(18) So that they enjoyed at least one privilege,

that of the right to the preparation of an erub.
(19) The case under consideration.
(20) And are thus deprived even of the one
privilege (cf. supra n. 11).
(21) As renunciation is permitted even where the
residents impose no restrictions upon each other
so is it also permitted where no erub could be
prepared by them on the Sabbath eve.
(22) Renunciation is admissible only where the
residents concerned (a) impose restrictions upon
one another or (b) could, if they desired, have
prepared an erub at the proper time.
(23) Who lived in a courtyard with two Israelites
who neither rented his share in it nor prepared an
erub on the Sabbath eve.
(24) May the Israelites renounce their rights to
each other on the Sabbath?
(25) On the Sabbath, from a gentile who returned
home on that day; and that renunciation is
subsequently permitted (v. supra 65b).
(26) Renting and renunciation.
(27) Renunciation.
(28) Obviously not.
(29) Cf. supra n. 5, mut. mut.
(30) Renting and renunciation.
(31) Lit., two it is that we do not do.
(32) Since in this case, unlike the one cited, the
residents could have rented the gentile's share
before the Sabbath when a valid erub could well
have been prepared.
(33) Which is admissible only where an erub
could have been prepared.
(34) Since in this case also no erub could have
been prepared because the gentile's share in the
courtyard had in fact not been rented.
(35) From his courtyard.
(36) In which Israelites live and into which his
courtyard also has a door.
(37) He is consequently presumed to have
renounced his right to his share in the alley, and if
he does use it he is regarded as a mere passer-by
whose passage can in no way affect the rights of
the residents (cf. R. Han.).
(38) The door of the heathen's courtyard that had
also a door opening towards an alley (cf. supra p.
467, n. 16).
(39) Is a karpaf in this respect regarded as a
valley?
(40) Var. lec., Hanan (Bomb. ed.).

Eruvin 67b
Even if it opened to a karpaf.1 Both Rabbah
and R. Joseph ruled: A gentile2 causes
restrictions3 [if his karpaf was no bigger
than] two beth se'ah,4 but if it was bigger5 he
causes no restrictions;6 an Israelite,7 however,

61

ERUVIN 53a-79a
causes no restrictions8 [if his karpaf was no
bigger than] two beth se'ah,9 but if it was
bigger10 he11 does cause restrictions.6

Within it,40 however,41 it is permitted to move

objects; and To what extent?42 To two beth
se'ah.43

Raba b. Haklai12 asked R. Huna: What is the

ruling13 where [the door of a gentile's
courtyard]14 opened into a karpaf15 The other
replied: Behold it has been said: Causes
restrictions if [his karpaf was no bigger than]
two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he causes
no restrictions.16

R. Ashi replied: [The limitation44 applies]

indeed to the first clause,45 for the Rabbis
have laid down the one ruling46 and they
themselves have also laid down the other
ruling:47 They have laid down the ruling that
in a karpaf that was bigger than two beth
se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling
purposes the movement of objects is
permitted only within four cubits,48 and they
themselves have also laid down the ruling
that no objects may be moved from a private
domain into a karmelith.49 [In the case,
therefore, of a rock that was no bigger than]
two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which
the movement of objects is permitted, the
Rabbis have forbidden the movement of
objects from the sea into it as well as from it
into the sea.50 What is the reason?51 Because
it52 is a private domain In all respects.53 [If,
however, It was] bigger than two beth se'ah,
throughout the area of which the movement
of objects is forbidden,54 the Rabbis
permitted the movement of objects from it
into the sea and from the sea into it.55 What is
the reason?56 Because, otherwise,57 people
might assume it to be a private domain in all
respects and, in consequence, would also
move objects throughout its area.58 But
wherein does the one differ from the
other?59

Ulla laid down in the name of R. Johanan: If

a man threw an object17 into a karpaf that
was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was
not enclosed for dwelling purposes he incurs
guilt18 even if it was of the size of a kor or
even as big as two kors. What is the reason?19
It is a proper enclosure20 which only lacks
tenants.21
R. Huna b. Hinena22 raised all objection: If a
rock in the sea23 was ten handbreadths high
and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to
move objects from it into the sea and from
the sea into it;24 but if it was lower25 this is
permitted.26 To what extent?27 To two beth
se'ah.28 Now what do these29 refer to? If it be
suggested: To the final clause,30 the objection
would arise: Seeing that one would only be
moving front a karmelith to a karmelith,31
why only two beth se'ah, and no more?
Consequently it must refer32 to the first
clause, and what was implied was this: If a
rock in the sea was ten handbreadths high
and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to
move objects from it into the sea and from
the sea into it, and To what extent?33 To two
beth se'ah, from which it follows that if it
was bigger than two beth se'ah the movement
of objects is permitted.34 It is thus obvious
that a rock of such dimensions has35 the
status of a karmelith. Does not this36 then
present an objection against R. Johanan?37
Raba retorted: only he who does not know
how to explain Baraithas raises such an
objection against R. Johanan. [The
limitation]38 as a matter of fact refers to the
first clause,39 and it is this that was meant:

It is usual to move objects within the area of

the rock itself60 but it is unusual to move
objects from it into the sea or from the sea
into it.61 There was once a child whose warm
water62 was spilled.63 Let some warm water,
said Rabbah be brought for him from my
house.64
But, observed Abaye, We have prepared
no erub.65 Let us then rely, the other
replied. on the shittuf.66
But, Abaye told him, we had no shittuf
either.66 Then, the other said: let a gentile
be instructed to bring it for him l

62

ERUVIN 53a-79a
wished, Abaye later remarked: to point out
an objection against the Master67 but R.
Joseph prevented me, because he told me in
the name of R. Kahana, "When we were at
Rab Judah's he used to tell us that in a
Pentateuchal matter68 any objection69 must
be raised before the Master's ruling is acted
upon.70 but in a Rabbinical matter71 we must
first72 act on the ruling of the Master and
then point out the objection".73 After that
he74 said to him,75 What objection was it that
you wished to raise against the Master? It
was taught, the other replied, that
"sprinkling"76 on the Sabbath is only
Rabbinically forbidden.77 Now, instructing a
gentile to do work78 on the Sabbath79 is also
Rabbinically forbidden,
(1) Does not the heathen in any way restrict the
use of the alley for its residents.
(2) Whose courtyard had one door opening into an
alley in which courtyard doors of Israelites also
opened, and another door opening into a karpaf.
(3) On the use of the alley by his Israelite
neighbors.
(4) Since the area of the karpaf is not big enough
to induce him to give up his use of the alley.
(5) In consequence of which he prefers to use the
karpaf and the door that leads to it, and dispenses
entirely with his right to the use of the alley.
(6) On the use of the alley by his Israelite
neighbors.
(7) V. supra n. 5.
(8) Even if he did not join in the erub of the other
residents.
(9) As he is permitted to use a karpaf of such a size
on the Sabbath, and since its area fully suffices for
all his possible Sabbath requirements and is also
more convenient for his use than the
comparatively smaller space of the alley, he is
presumed to have dispensed with his right to the
use of the alley which may, therefore, be provided
by its other residents with a valid erub even if he
does not participate in it.
(10) So that it has the status of a karmelith (v.
Glos.) into which he is forbidden to move any
objects from his courtyard on the Sabbath.
(11) Being inevitably driven to the use of the alley.
(12) MS.M., Hakuka.
(13) According to Rab Judah who spoke (supra
67a ad fin.) of a door that opened into a valley.
(14) That had also a door to an alley in which
Israelites resided.
(15) Sc. has a karpaf the same status as a valley?
(16) Supra q.v. notes.

(17) From a public domain, on the Sabbath when

it is forbidden to move objects from a public
domain into a private one and vice versa.
(18) Sc. he is liable to bring a sin-offering as if he
had thrown the object into a private domain.
(19) I.e., since a karpaf of the size mentioned is
subject to the law of a karmelith, within which the
movement of objects beyond the distance of four
cubits is forbidden, why should it here be
regarded as a private domain?
(20) Hence it has Pentateuchally the same status as
a private domain, and guilt is therefore incurred
for throwing any objects from a public domain
into it.
(21) In consequence of which it was Rabbinically
subjected to the restrictions of a karmelith also.
(22) MS. M., Hanina.
(23) A sea is subject to the restrictions of a
karmelith.
(24) Even within four cubits; because a rock of the
dimensions given has the status of a private
domain into which from a karmelith and into a
karmelith from which it is forbidden to move
objects on the Sabbath.
(25) Lit., less than here (stated).
(26) Lit., (they may) move (objects), from the sea
into it and from it into the sea, within four cubits,
since such a low rock has the status of a karmelith
like the sea which surrounds it.
(27) In the area of the rock. It will be explained
presently what the question and the following
answer refer to.
(28) But not to a bigger area.
(29) The last question and answer.
(30) Which deals with a rock that was lower than
ten handbreadths.
(31) Since, whatever its area, a rock that is lower
than ten handbreadths has the status of a
karmelith.
(32) Lit., but not?
(33) Of area of rock.
(34) Cf. supra n. 9 mut. mut.
(35) On account of its big area, despite its height.
(36) The relaxation of the law in turning a private
domain into a karmelith on account of the extent
of its area.
(37) Who laid down supra that though a karpaf
was bigger than two beth se'ah it is still subject to
the restrictions of a private domain and that a
person who threw an object from a public domain
into it incurs guilt.
(38) To two beth se'ah, in the Baraitha cited by
R. Huna b. Hinena.
(39) Which deals with a rock that was lover than
ten handbreadths.
(40) Sc. on the surface of the rock itself.
(41) Since the first clause only stated that it is
forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and
from the sea into it and did not forbid the

63

ERUVIN 53a-79a
movement of objects on the surface of the rock
from one part of it to another.
(42) Of area of rock is the movement of objects on
the rock itself permitted.
(43) But if it is bigger it loses, on account of its
wide extent and the absence of inhabitants, the
status of a private domain in respect of the
movement of objects within it, and assumes that of
a karmelith. Had it not been subjected to these
restrictions people might erroneously have treated
a public domain also with the same laxity. On
account of its height, however, it retains, in
relation to the sea, the status of a private domain
the movement of objects from which into the sea
and vice versa remains forbidden.
(44) To two beth se'ah, in the Baraitha cited by
R. Huna b. Hinena.
(45) But not, as Raba explained, to an inference
from that clause.
(46) That relating to a karpaf as enunciated by R.
Johanan.
(47) The one in the first clause of the Baraitha
cited by R. Huna b. Hinena as defined by the
limitation at its conclusion. Since both rulings are
merely Rabbinical and not Pentateuchal the
Rabbis could well abrogate one in favor of the
other wherever the general requirements of the
Sabbath laws demanded such a course; as will be
explained anon.
(48) Sc. that it has been given the status of a
karmelith as a restriction and safeguard against
mistaking it for a public domain and applying its
relaxation to the latter also. It is nevertheless
forbidden to move airy objects from it into a
public domain or vice versa since, as R. Johanan
stated, it is Pentateuchally regarded as a private
domain proper.
(49) As a precaution against the moving of objects
from a private into a public domain.
(50) Since the prohibition only strengthens the
Sabbath laws and can in no way lead, as in the
case that follows, to their infringement.
(51) For the imposition of the restrictions.
(52) The rock whose area was less than two beth
se'ah.
(53) And no infringement of the law (cf. infra n.
10) need be provided against.
(54) It having been given the status of a karmelith.
(55) Within four cubits.
(56) Sc. why were not the restriction had been
imposed and the movement of this case also?
(57) If the restrictions had been imposed ant the
movement of objects from it into the sea or vice
versa had been forbidden even within four cubits.
(58) Even beyond four cubits. As this, however,
"would entail an infringement of the Rabbinical
law which imposed on such an area the
restrictions of a karmelith, it was considered
preferable to abrogate in this case the law

forbidding the movement of objects between a

karmelith and a private domain.
(59) I.e., why should the law against moving
objects between a karmelith and a private domain
be abrogated rather than the one forbidding the
movement of objects beyond four cubits in a
private domain that was bigger than two beth
se'ah?
(60) Hence it was necessary to enact a preventive
measure.
(61) Against that which is unusual no preventive
measures were enacted. Only in the case of a
private domain and a karmelith on land, the
movement of objects between which is not
infrequent, has such a preventive measure been
deemed necessary.
(62) That was prepared for him prior to the
Sabbath, in connection with his circumcision due
on the Sabbath day, and kept warm for the
purpose.
(63) On the Sabbath.
(64) Which was in the same courtyard.
(65) Sc. an erub of courtyards which enables the
tenants of different houses in the same courtyard
to move objects from house to house through the
courtyard area.
(66) V. Glos. Shittuf in an alley in relation to its
courtyards and the houses in their courtyards
serves the same purpose as that of erub in a
courtyard in relation to its houses (cf. infra 73a).
(67) Rabbah
(68) Concerning which a Master gives a decision.
(69) Which a student wishes to raise against it.
(70) Since very great care must be exercised in any
action that might possibly infringe a Pentateuchal
law.
(71) Concerning which a Master gives a decision.
(72) out of respect for the Master, and on the
assumption that he would be able to give a
suitable answer to the students objection.
(73) As the law of erub of courtyards is only
Rabbinical Abaye had no alternative but to act on
Rabbah's ruling.
(74) R. Joseph.
(75) Abaye.
(76) On an unclean person, of the water of
purification containing the ashes of the red heifer
(cf. Num. XIX, 2ff).
(77) Shebuth v. Glos.
(78) for an Israelite.
(79) If that work is forbidden on the Sabbath to an
Israelite.

Eruvin 68a
why then should it not be said: As
"sprinkling" on the Sabbath which is a
Rabbinical prohibition does not supersede
the Sabbath1 so should not an instruction to a

64

ERUVIN 53a-79a
gentile to do work on the Sabbath which is
also Rabbinically forbidden supersede the
Sabbath?2
Do you, the first retorted: draw no
distinction between a Rabbinical prohibition
that involves a manual cat3 and one4 that
involves no such act?5 How is it, Rabbah
son of R. Hanan) asked Abaye, that in an
alley in which two great men like you6 reside
there should be neither erub nor shittuf?
What, the other replied. can we do? For
the Master7 [to collect the tenants
contribution].8 would not be becoming,9 l am
busy with my studies, and the other tenants
do not care. And were I10 to transfer to them
the possession of a share of the bread in my
basket11 the shittuf, Since If they had asked
me for the bread l could not give it to them,12
would be invalid; for it was taught: If one of
the residents of an alley13 asked for some of
the wine or the oil14 and they refused to give
it to them the shittuf is thereby rendered null
and void. Why then, the first asked:
should not the Master transfer to them the
possession of a quarter of a log of vinegar15 a
cask?16
It was taught: [Commodities kept] in store17
may not be used for shittuf.18 But was It not
taught that they19 may be used for shittuf?
This, R. Oshaia replied, is no contradiction,
since one view is that of Beth Shammai and
the other is that of Beth Hillel. For we
learned: If a corpse lay in a house that had
many doors20 all the doorways21 are
unclean.22 If one of them was opened, that
doorway is unclean while all the others are
clean.23 If it was intended to take out the
corpse through one of them, or through a
window that measured four handbreadths by
four, this protects all the doors.24
Beth Shammai ruled: This25 applies only
where the intention was formed before the
person in question was dead,26 but Beth Hillel
ruled: Even if it was formed after he was
dead.27 There was once a certain child28

whose warm water29 was spilled out.30 Said

Raba: Let us ask his mother [and] if she
requires any, a gentile31 might warm some
for him indirectly through his mother. His
mother, R. Mesharsheya told Raba, is
already eating dates.32 It is quite possible,
the other replied, that it was merely a stupor
that had seized her.33 There was once a
child34 whose warm water35 was spilled out.36
Remove my things, ordered Raba,37 from
the men's quarters38 to the women's
quarters39 and I will go and sit there40 so
that41 I may renounce in favor of the tenants
of the child's courtyard42 the right I have in
this one.43 But, said Rabina to Raba, did
not Samuel lay down: No renunciation of
one's right in a courtyard is permitted where
two courtyards are involved?44
I, the other replied, hold the same view as
R. Johanan who laid down: It is permitted to
renounce one's right in a courtyard even
where two courtyards are involved. But,
the first asked: if the Master does not hold
the same view as Samuel
(1) Even where the performance of a Pentateuchal
commandment, such, e.g., as that if the Paschal
lamb, must in consequence be postponed (cf. Pes.
65b).
(2) Why then did Rabbah permit an instruction to
be given to a gentile to bring the warm water for
the child?
(3) Sprinkling, for instance.
(4) Such as a mere verbal instruction.
(5) The answer, of course, must be in the
affirmative. While a manual act remains
forbidden even where a commandment must
thereby be superseded a verbal may well be
permitted where it is essential for the observance
of a commandment such as circumcision with
which Rabbah had to deal. The insertion in cur.
edd., for the master, surely, did not tell the
gentile: Go and warm (it), is deleted by Bah.
(6) Lit., like our Rabbis, Rabbah and Abaye.
(7) Rabbah.
(8) To the erub.
(9) Lit., not his way.
(10) Instead of making a collection.
(11) Which could be designated as erub; and thus
give all the tenants a share in it.
(12) He could not well afford to give away every
Sabbath a portion of his bread to any of his
neighbors who might care to assert his claim.
(13) Who contributed his share to the shittuf.

65

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(14) That has been contributed.
(15) There could be no great loss in giving some
vinegar to any of the tenants who might ask for it.
(16) Which might be kept in his courtyard
throughout the year and thus enable all the
tenants to have free intercourse between the
courtyards and the houses.
(17) Sc. a store of fruit or a cask of vinegar, for
instance, from which small quantities at a time are
being consumed.
(18) In the case of a cask of vinegar, for instance,
no portion of it may be designated for the purpose,
because no one could possibly distinguish between
the quantity that had been so designated and the
general contents of the cask; and any quantity that
one may happen to use at any time might be
assumed to be the quantity that had been
designated for the shittuf which in consequence
would cease to exist.
(19) Commodities in store (v. previous n.).
(20) That were closed.
(21) Lit., all of them, since no decision had been
made through which of the doors the corpse shall
be carried out.
(22) Sc. any object that happens to be within the
space enclosed by the door posts, lintel and
threshold, though it was not within the room, is
levitically unclean.
(23) Because it is assumed that the corpse would
be taken out through the opened door.
(24) Cf. prev. n.
(25) That intention is effective.
(26) Since in that case the uncleanness has never
descended on the other doors. If, however, no
intention had been formed before the person was
dead, and all the doors had been affected by the
uncleanness, any subsequent intention cannot
retrospectively, cause a differentiation between
the one door and the others.
(27) Ohal. VII, 3. Intention, in their opinion, is
effective retrospectively. Similarly in the case of
shittuf with a non-identified quantity: According
to Beth Hillel the shittuf is valid, since any
quantity of the contents that remain in the cask
may be retrospectively regarded as the original
quantity assigned for the shittuf: while according
to Beth Shammai it cannot be so regarded and the
shittuf is consequently invalid.
(28) Who was to be circumcised on the Sabbath.
(29) That had been prepared before the Sabbath
and kept warm for the operation.
(30) On the Sabbath.
(31) An Israelite may desecrate the Sabbath for
the sake of a woman in childbirth during the first
seven days only. After the first seven days
(circumcision cannot take place before the eighth
clay) an Israelite, though himself forbidden to do
for her sake any work that is forbidden on the
Sabbath, may request a gentile to do it.

(32) Sc. cold foodstuffs. As she is able to eat cold

food it is obvious that her life cannot be dependent
on the warm water which, consequently, must not
be prepared for her on the Sabbath.
(33) I.e., she may have been unconscious that she
was eating anything at all. Hence, if she expressed
a desire for warm water it is permitted to request
a gentile to warm some for her and so, indirectly,
for the child also.
(34) Who was to be circumcised on the Sabbath.
(35) V. p.474, n. 12.
(36) On the Sabbath.
(37) Who had a supply of warm water in his own
courtyard which was adjacent to that in which the
child was kept. No joint erub for the two
courtyards had been prepared but they had a
common door between them. Cur. ed., to them,
is omitted with MS.M.
(38) In which he usually lived and which
communicated directly with his courtyard.
(39) Which, for the sake of privacy, were behind
the men's apartments and consequently
inaccessible from the courtyard except by way of
the men's quarters.
(40) During the Sabbath.
(41) By being deprived of direct access to the
courtyard.
(42) Lit., to them.
(43) Sc. his own courtyard. On renouncing his
right in their favor they would acquire possession
of his courtyard and therewith also the right to
carry objects from one courtyard into the other
through the common door. Thus they would be
placed in a position enabling them to carry the
required warm water to the child's apartment.
Raba, on the other hand, who, as a result of his
renunciation, would be deprived of the use of his
courtyard, would be protected against the possible
use of it through forgetfulness by his removal to
the inner apartments from which he could gain no
access to it except through the men's quarters
involving a long walk and sufficient time in which
to recollect his self-imposed restrictions.
(44) Supra 66b. Lit., from courtyard to
courtyard. How then could Raba renounce his
right in favor of the tenants of the child's
courtyard?

Eruvin 68b
let him remain1 in his usual quarters2 and
renounce his right in his courtyard in their3
favor and then4 let them renounce their
right5 in the Master's favour,6 for did not
Rab rule: Renunciaton7 may be followed8 by
renunciation?9

66

ERUVIN 53a-79a
On this point I am of the same opinion as
Samuel who ruled: Renunciation7 may not be
followed8 by renunciation.10 But are not
both rulings11 based on the same principle,
since why indeed should not renunciation7 be
allowed to follow8 renunciation?9 Is it not
because a person, as soon as he renounces his
right.12 completely eliminates himself from
that place and assumes the status of a tenant
of a different courtyard and no renunciation
is valid between two courtyards? How then13
could the Master14 renounce his right?15
There16 the reason is this:17 That a
Rabbinical enactment18 shall not assume19
the character of a mockery and jest. [To turn
to] the main text: Rab ruled: Renunciation
may be followed by renunciation, and Samuel
ruled: Renunciation may not be followed by
renunciation.20 Must it be assumed that Rab
and Samuel differ on the same principle as
that on which the Rabbis and R. Eliezer
differed,21 Rab holding the same opinion as
the Rabbis22 while Samuel holds the same
opinion as R. Eliezer?23
Rab can answer you: I may uphold my ruling
even in accordance with the view of R.
Eliezer; for it was only there that R. Eliezer
maintained his ruling that the man who
renounces his right to his courtyard
renounces ipso facto his right to his house
also, because people do not live in a house
that has no courtyard, but did he24 express
any
opinion
as
regards
complete
elimination?25 Samuel also can answer you: l
may uphold my ruling even according to the
view of the Rabbis; for it was only there that
the Rabbis maintained their ruling,26 since
only that which a man actually renounced
can be deemed to have been renounced while
that which he did not actually renounce
cannot be so regarded, but from that at least
which a man does renounce he is eliminated
completely.27
R. Aha b. Hana28 citing R. Shesheth stated:
Their views29 [differ on the same principles]
as those of the following Tannas: If a tenant30
presented31 his shares32 and then he carried

out
something,32 whether
he
acted
unwittingly or intentionally, he imposes
restrictions;33 so R. Meir.
R. Judah ruled: If he acted34 with intention
he imposes restrictions,33 but if unwittingly
he does not.35 Now, do they36 not differ on the
following principles: One Master37 holding
that renunciation38 may be followed by
renunciation, while the other Master39
maintains that renunciation40 may not be
followed by renunciation?41
R. Aha b. Tahlifa replied in the name of
Raba: No; all42 hold the view that
renunciation may not be followed by
renunciation but43 the point at Issue between
them44 is whether a penalty has been imposed
in the case of one who acted unwittingly on
account of one who acted intentionally. One
Master45 holds the view that in the case of
one who acted unwittingly a penalty has been
imposed on account of one who acted with
intention,46 while the other Master47 holds
that in the case of one who acted unwittingly
no penalty has been imposed on account of
one who may act with intention.48
R. Ashi said: Rab and Samuel differed on the
same point of issue as the one between, R.
Eliezer and the Rabbis.
R. GAMALIEL RELATED: A SADDUCEE
ONCE LIVED WITH US. Whoever spoke of
A SADDUCEE?49 A clause is missing, and
this is the correct reading:50 A Sadducee has
the same status as a gentile,51 but R. Gamaliel
ruled: A Sadducee has not the status of a
gentile.
AND R. GAMALIEL RELATED: A
SADDUCEE ONCE LIVED WITH US IN
THE SAME ALLEY IN JERUSALEM. AND
FATHER TOLD US: HASTEN AND
CARRY OUT52 ALL THE NECESSARY
ARTICLES INTO THE ALLEY53 BEFORE
HE CARRIES OUT HIS54 AND THEREBY
IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU.
And so55 it was also taught: If a man lives [in
the same alley] with a gentile, a Sadducee or

67

ERUVIN 53a-79a
a Boethusian, these impose restrictions upon
him;56 and it once happened that a Sadducee
lived with R. Gamaliel in the same alley in
Jerusalem, and R. Gamaliel said to his sons,
Hasten my sons and carry52 Out what you
desire to carry out57 or58 take in52 what you
desire to take in,57 before this abomination
carries out his articles and thereby imposes
restrictions upon you, since [at that moment]
he renounced his share in your favor; So R.
Meir. R. Judah related, [The instruction was
given] in a different form: Hasten and
attend to your requirements in the alley
before nightfall when he would impose
restrictions upon you.59
The Master said, Carry out what you desire
to carry out or bring in what you desire to
bring in, before this abomination imposes
restrictions upon you. This then implies
that60 if they carried out their objects first
and then he carried out his he imposes no
restrictions upon them.
(1) Instead of moving into the women's quarters.
(2) Lit., in his place.
(3) The tenants of the child's courtyard.
(4) After they had taken the water to the child.
(5) In Raba's courtyard.
(6) Who, in consequence, would again be allowed
the free use of his courtyard.
(7) By one person in favor of another.
(8) On the same Sabbath.
(9) On the part of the latter in favor of the former.
Cf. infra 69b.
(10) Cf. prev. n. and infra 79b.
(11) That (a) after a person renounced his right in
a courtyard in favor of another the latter may not
on the same Sabbath renounce it in favor of the
former and (b) no tenant of one courtyard may
renounce his right in it in favor of a tenant of
another courtyard.
(12) To his share in a courtyard.
(13) Since on adopting one ruling the adoption of
the other is inevitable.
(14) Lit., the Master also should not.
(15) In favor of the tenants of the child's
courtyard.
(16) The ruling of Samuel that renunciation may
not be followed by renunciation.
(17) Not the one suggested by the questioner.
(18) The prohibition to move objects from one
courtyard into another without erub.
(19) By repeated renunciations and the consequent
freedom in the moving of objects between

courtyards
without
any
further
legal
preliminaries.
(20) Supra q.v. notes.
(21) Cf. supra 26b.
(22) Who laid down (v. Mishnah infra 69b and its
explanation in the Gemara following it) that if one
of the tenants forgot to contribute his share to the
erub of his neighbors in a courtyard, but on the
Sabbath renounced his right to share in the
courtyard in their favor, it is forbidden both to
him and to them to carry any objects from his
house into the courtyard or from the courtyard
into his house; from which it is evident that,
though a man renounced his right in a courtyard,
he is not ipso facto assumed to have renounced his
right to his house also. Thus it follows that a
tenant's renunciation is not regarded as his
complete elimination; that he is still a legitimate
tenant of the same courtyard; and that, in
agreement with Rab, the other tenants may
renounce in his favor the rights he previously
renounced in their favor.
(23) Who ruled (cf. supra 26b) that he who
renounces his rights to his courtyard renounces
ipso facto his rights to his house also; from which
it follows that a tenant's renunciation is regarded
as his complete elimination from his courtyard,
that he assumes in consequence the status of a
tenant of a different courtyard; and that, in
agreement with the view of Samuel, the other
tenants may not renounce in his favor the rights
he previously conceded to them.
(24) R. Eliezer.
(25) l.e., that the man in question Should be
regarded as the tenant of a different courtyard in
whose favor consequently his neighbors should not
be allowed to renounce their rights? No such
opinion having been expressed, R. Eliezer may
well be assumed to share the view advanced by
Rab that renunciation may be followed by
renunciation.
(26) That the renunciation of a tenant's Share in a
courtyard does not imply his renunciation to his
rights in his house.
(27) As the tenant in question renounced his right
to the courtyard he must be regarded as a tenant
of a different courtyard in whose favor no right in
the former courtyard may subsequently be
renounced.
(28) MS.M., Rabbah b. Bar Hana.
(29) Those of Rab and Samuel on the question of a
renunciation that followed a renunciation.
(30) Who forgot to join in the erub of his
neighbors in a courtyard.
(31) On the Sabbath, to his neighbors.
(32) In the courtyard into which their houses
opened.
(33) On the "use of the courtyard by all the
tenants. His carrying of the object into the
courtyard is regarded as an act of re-acquisition of

68

ERUVIN 53a-79a
the share he had previously renounced in favor of
the other tenants.
(34) When carrying out an object.
(35) infra 69b.
(36) R. Meir and R. Judah.
(37) R. Meir who ruled that restrictions are
imposed even where an object had been carried
out unwittingly, from which it follows that the
renunciation is not regarded as the tenant's
complete elimination.
(38) Since elimination is incomplete (cf. prev. n.)
and the tenant in question is still denied to be
living in the same courtyard.
(39) R. Judah who ruled that if an object was
carried out unwittingly no restrictions are
imposed, from which it follows that a renunciation
results in so complete an elimination that only an
intentional act can revoke it.
(40) Resulting as it does in the tenant's complete
elimination (et prev. n.).
(41) Apparently they do. Must it then be assumed
that both Rab and Samuel differ from one or
other of the Tannas mentioned?
(42) Even R. Meir.
(43) In reply to the objection: Why does R. Meir
impose restrictions even where the tenant acted
unwittingly?
(44) It. Meir and R. Judah.
(45) R. Meir.
(46) Had the law been relaxed in the case of the
former it might erroneously have been relaxed in
that of the latter also.
(47) R. Judah.
(48) In the case, however, of an intentional
carrying out of all object since a renunciation
cannot have the legal force of a sale, all agree that
the act cancels the renunciation; provided only
that the act preceded the tenants acquisition of
the renounced share.
(49) None; the Mishnah having dealt with a
heathen oily. Why then does It. Gamaliel
introduce the Sadducee as if someone had given a
different ruling concerning him?
(50) Of our Mishnah.
(51) He cannot renounce his right to his share in a
courtyard by a mere declaration.
(52) As soon as the Sabbath begins.
(53) Thus acquiring possession of it.
(54) And re-acquires his right to his share.
(55) That, as has just been explained, the Rabbis
differ from R. Gamaliel in the case of a Sadducee.
(56) In his use of the alley on the Sabbath. Cur.
edd. in parenthesis, R. Gamaliel ruled: A
Sadducee and a Boethusian impose no
restrictions.
(57) During the Sabbath.
(58) So Tosaf. s.v. a.l.
(59) In his opinion R. Gamaliel regards a
Sadducee as a gentile and no renunciation of his is
valid.

(60) According to R. Meir.

Eruvin 69a
But have we not learnt: If a tenant1 presented
his share2 and then he carried out
something,3 whether he acted unwittingly or
intentionally, he imposes restrictions;4 so R.
Meir?5
R. Joseph replied. Read:6 He imposes no
restrictions. Abaye replied: There is no
contradiction,7 the former dealing with a
case8 where the residents of the alley had
taken possession of the alley9 while the latter
deals with one8 where the residents of the
alley had not taken possession of the alley;
and so it was also taught: If he10 carried out
an object11 before he had renounced his
share,12 whether he acted13 unwittingly or
intentionally, he14 is entitled to renounce his
right;15 so R. Meir.
R. Judah ruled: If he acted13 unwittingly he is
entitled to renounce his right15 but if he acted
with intention he is no longer entitled to
renounce his right.16 He who presented his
share12 and then carried out an object.11
whether he acted13 unwittingly or with
intention, he imposes restrictions;17 so R.
Meir.
R. Judah ruled: If he acted18 with intention
he imposes restrictions but if unwittingly he
does not. This,19 however, applies only where
the residents of the alley did not take
possession of the alley.20 but where they did
take possession of it20 he imposes no
restrictions upon them irrespective of
whether
he
acted18 unwittingly
or
intentionally.
The Master said: R. Judah related, [The
instruction was given] in a different form:
"Hasten and attend to your requirements in
the alley before nightfall when he would
impose restrictions in you". From this21 it is
evident that he is regarded as a gentile; but
have we not learnt.22

69

ERUVIN 53a-79a
BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT?23 Read:
Before the conclusion of the day.24 And if you
prefer I might say: There is really no
contradiction since the former25 might refer
to one who is a mumar26 in respect of
desecrating the Sabbath in privacy only,
while the latter27 might deal with one who
desecrates the Sabbath in public. Whose view
is followed in what was taught: A mumar26
or a barefaced sinner is not entitled to
renounce his share? But is a barefaced
sinner on a par with a mumar?28
Rather read: A barefaced mumar29 is not
entitled to renounce his share. Now in
agreement with whose [view has this been
laid down]? In agreement, of course, with
that of R. Judah.30 A certain man once went
out31 with a jeweled charm32 but when he
observed R. Judah Nesi'ah he covered it up.
A person of this type,33 [the Master said.] is
in accordance with the view of R. Judah
entitled to renounce his share.
R. Huna stated: Who is regarded as an
Israelite in mumar?34 He who desecrates the
Sabbath in public.
Said R. Nahman to him: In agreement with
whose view?35 If [it be suggested that it is] in
agreement with that of R. Meir who holds
that a person who is suspected of
disregarding one matter [of law] is held
suspect in regard to all the Torah,36 the
statement should also apply to any of the
other prohibitions of the Torah;37 and if [it is
suggested that it is] in agreement with the
view of the Rabbis,38 did they not rule, it may
be objected, that one who is suspected of
disregarding one law is not held suspected in
regard to all the Torah
(1) Who, owing to forgetfulness, failed to
contribute his share to the erub of his neighbors.
(2) To his neighbors, on the Sabbath.
(3) Into their alley.
(4) On the use of the alley by all its residents.
(5) Infra 69b. How then are the two rulings of R.
Meir (v. supra n. 2) to be reconciled?
(6) In the Mishnah just cited.
(7) Cf. supra n. 7.
(8) lit., here.

(9) Before the man who presented them with, or

renounced in their favor his share had carried out
his objects.
(10) A tenant who, forgetting to join in the
common erub, presented his share to his
neighbors.
(11) Into the alley towards which his courtyard as
well as the courtyards of the others opened.
(12) In the alley, in favor of his neighbors.
(13) When he carried out the objects.
(14) Though accused of a desecration of the
Sabbath.
(15) In favor of the other residents.
(16) Cf. prev. n., R. Judah holding the opinion that
a person who intentionally desecrates the Sabbath
is denied the privilege of renunciation.
(17) On the use of the alley by its residents. His
intentional use of it after he had presented his
share to his neighbors is regarded as the reacquisition of his share; and in the case of an
unwitting use of it the restrictions are imposed on
account of the possibility of intentional use.
(18) When he carried out the objects.
(19) That if an Israelite tenant presented his share
to his neighbors and then used the alley, there is a
difference of opinion between R. Meir and R.
Judah, the latter holding that restrictions are
imposed only where the use was intentional while
the former maintains that they are imposed even
where the use was unintentional (cf. Rashi s.v.
ad fin. a.l.).
(20) Before the tenant in question had carried out
his object.
(21) The statement of R. Judah according to which
a Sadducee is not entitled to renounce his right to
his share.
(22) In R. Judah's ruling in our Mishnah.
(23) Which shows that until that time at least his
renunciation is valid. If, however, he has the status
of a gentile how could his renunciation ever be
valid?
(24) ( cf. Bah. Cur. edd. ), an
expression which conveys the same meaning as
that of before nightfall in R. Judah's statement
cited in the Baraitha. Instead of ( Hif. Of )
which bears the meaning of carrying (
he will carry out his things), the reading is
(Kal. Of )which bears the meaning of going
out, departing.
(25) Lit., here our Mishnah which allows a
Sadducee to renounce his right.
(26) Lit., changed, converted, an apostate, a
person who does not conform to the Jewish law.
(27) The Baraitha which regards the Sadducee as
a gentile.
(28) Barefacedness, surely, is not so great an
offence as the denial of the laws of the Sabbath.
(29) Sc. one who desecrates the Sabbath in public.
(30) As has just been explained. It cannot be in
agreement with the views of R. Meir since he

70

ERUVIN 53a-79a
allows even a mumar who desecrates the Sabbath
in public to renounce his share.
(31) On the Sabbath when the carrying of objects
in a public domain is forbidden.
(32) Humarta di-medusha, a charm, ball or
bead containing a jewel for sealing; or a small
bundle of spices (cf. Rashi a.l. anti Jast.). Such an
object, not being regarded as a personal
ornament, may not be carried on the Sabbath in a
public domain even on one's person.
(33) I.e., who is ashamed to carry the forbidden
object in the presence of a noted personality.
(34) This is now assumed to mean a mumar or
apostate in all respects.
(35) Is this statement made.
(36) Bek. 30b.
(37) Not only to that against the desecration of the
Sabbath.
(38) Who differ from R. Meir (v. Bek. 30b).

Eruvin 69b
unless he is a mumar in respect of
idolatry?1
R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: Only in respect
of presenting or renouncing his right to his
share,2 this being in agreement with what was
taught: An Israelite mumar who observes the
Sabbath in public3 may renounce his share,
but one who does not observe the Sabbath in
public may not renounce his share, because
the Rabbis have laid down: An Israelite may
renounce or present his share, whereas with a
gentile transfer is possible only through the
letting of his share. How is this4 done? He5
says to him,6 My share is acquired by you
or my share is renounced in your favor,
[and the latter thereby] acquires possession
and there is no need for him to perform a
formal act of acquisition.7
R. Ashi replied:8 To this Tanna9 the
desecration of the Sabbath is an offence as
grave as idol worship;10 as it was taught: Of
you11 implies:12 But not all of you, thus
excluding a mumar;13 of you14 only among
you did I make distinctions15 but not among
the other nations;16 of the cattle17 includes
men who resemble cattle.18 From here it has
been inferred that sacrifices may be accepted
from transgressors in Israel,19 in order that
they might return in repentance, all except

from a mumar, from one who offers libations

of wine to idols and from one who publicly
desecrates the Sabbath.20 Now is not this
statement self contradictory: First you said:
Of you implies: But not all of you, thus
excluding a mumar, and then you state,
Sacrifices
may
be
accepted
from
transgressors in Israel?21
This, however, is no contradiction since the
first clause might deal with a person who is a
mumar in respect of all the Torah, while the
intervening clause might refer to one who is a
mumar in respect of one precept only. But
[then] read the final clause: Except from a
mumar and from one who offers libations of
wine to idols. What, pray, is one to
understand by this type of mumar? If he is a
mumar in respect of all the Torah he is
obviously identical with the one in the first
clause;22 and if he is a mumar in respect of
one precept only, does not a contradiction
arise from the middle clause?23 Must it not
consequently be conceded that it is this that
was meant:24 Except from one who is a
mumar in respect of offering libations of
wine to idols or the desecration of the
Sabbath in public?25 It is thus evident that
idolatry and the desecration of the Sabbath
are offences of equal gravity.26 This is
conclusive.
MISHNAH. IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A
COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE
ERUB,27 HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN BOTH
TO HIM AND TO THEM FOR THE TAKING IN
OR FOR THE TAKING OUT OF ANY
OBJECT.28 BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE
PERMITTED BOTH TO HIM AND TO THEM.29
IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES30 TO
HIM,
HE
IS
PERMITTED
THE
UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE COURTYARD
BUT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN.31 IF THERE
WERE TWO [WHO FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE
ERUB], THEY32 IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS
UPON ONE ANOTHER, BECAUSE ONE
TENANT MAY PRESENT HIS SHARE33 AND
ALSO ACQUIRE THE SHARES OF OTHERS34
WHILE TWO TENANTS MAY PRESENT
THEIR SHARES BUT MAY NOT ACQUIRE

71

ERUVIN 53a-79a
ANY.35 WHEN MUST ONE'S SHARE BE
PRESENTED?36 BETH SHAMMAI RULED:
WHILE IT IS YET DAY,37 AND BETH HILLEL
RULED: AFTER DUSK. IF A TENANT
PRESENTED HIS SHARE33 AND THEN
CARRIED OUT ANY OBJECT, WHETHER
UNWITTINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY, LIE
IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS;38 SO R. MEIR. R.
JUDAH RULED: IF HE ACTED WITH
INTENTION HE IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS,
BUT IF UNWITTINGLY HE IMPOSES NO
RESTRICTIONS.
GEMARA. Apparently it is only HIS HOUSE
that IS FORBIDDEN but his share in the
courtyard39 is permitted;40 but how is one to
understand the circumstances? If he has
renounced his rights,41 why should his
house42 be forbidden? And if he has not
renounced his rights why should his
courtyard be permitted? Here we are dealing
with the case of a tenant who renounced his
right to his courtyard but not his right to his
house, the Rabbis43 being of the opinion that
a tenant who renounces his right to his
courtyard does not ipso facto renounce his
right to his house, since a person might well
live in a house that has no courtyard.
BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED
BOTH TO HIM AND TO THEM. What is
the reason? Because he44 is regarded as
their guest.
IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES
TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED THE
UNRESTRICTED
USE
OF
THE
COURTYARD
BUT
THEY
ARE
FORBIDDEN. Why should not they be
regarded as his guests? One man may be
regarded as the guest of five45 men; five men
cannot be regarded as the guests of one. Does
this46 then imply that renunciation47 may be
followed by renunciation?48
No; it is this that was meant: IF THEY
originally49 PRESENTED THEIR SHARES
TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED THE
UNRESTRICTED
USE
OF
THE
COURTYARD
BUT
THEY
ARE

FORBIDDEN. IF THERE WERE TWO

WHO FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE ERUB
THEY IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON
ONE ANOTHER. Is not this obvious?50
This ruling was necessary only in a case
where one of them has subsequently51
renounced his share52 in favor of the other.
As it might have been assumed that the latter
should be permitted [the full use of the
courtyard].53 hence we were informed that
[this is not so], because the former, at the
time he renounced his share, was not himself
permitted the unrestricted use of that
courtyard.54
BECAUSE ONE TENANT MAY PRESENT
HIS SHARE. What need again was there for
this ruling? If that he MAY PRESENT, did
we not learn this before?55 If that he MAY
ACQUIRE, did we not already learn this
also?56 It was necessary on account of the
final clause: TWO TENANTS MAY
PRESENT THEIR SHARES. Is not this also
obvious?57 It might have been presumed
(1) But not in respect of the Sabbath.
(2) Is an Israelite who desecrates the Sabbath
regarded as a mumar.
(3) Lit., in the market place, though he
desecrates it in private.
(4) An Israelite's renunciation or presentation.
(5) The one who is renouncing or presenting.
(6) The other in whose favor the renunciation or
presentation is made.
(7) Such as, for instance, symbolic acquisition. Cf.
A.Z. 64b, Hul. 6a.
(8) To the objection raised by R. Nahman against
R. Huna.
(9) Whose view R. Huna was presumably
reporting.
(10) Sc. as one guilty of idolatry is regarded as a
mumar in respect of all the Torah so also is one
who is guilty of the desecration of the Sabbath.
(11) Lev. 1, 2, dealing with sacrifices.
(12) Emphasis on of.
(13) Sc. that no sacrifices may be accepted from a
mumar.
(14) Emphasis on you.
(15) Between a mumar and a confessing Israelite.
(16) Sacrifices from these must be accepted
without regard to the religious views they hold (cf.
Hul. 13b).
(17) Lev. 1, 2, dealing with sacrifices. Emphasis on
cattle.

72

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(18) Wicked men who, like cattle, are unconscious
of their duties to God and man.
(19) Who in their ignorance or carelessness might
have strayed from the right path.
(20) Hul. 5a.
(21) Transgressors presumably including the
mumar also.
(22) Then why the repetition?
(23) Which does allow sacrifices to be accepted
from a person who is a mumar in respect of one
precept only.
(24) In the final clause.
(25) Of course it must.
(26) And this is the view held by R. Huna. Hence
there is no necessity to resort to the reply of R.
Nahman b. Isaac according to which a man who
publicly desecrates the Sabbath is regarded as a
mumar only in respect of his disability to present
and renounce his share in connection with the
laws of erub. Such a man, as has originally been
assumed, is in fact regarded as a mumar in all
respects.
(27) In which his neighbors have joined.
(28) The circumstances in which this law applies
are discussed in the Gemara infra.
(29) I.e., it is permitted to move objects from their
houses into the courtyard and frown the
courtyard into their houses, since both their
houses and courtyard have been converted into
one common domain.
(30) In their courtyard.
(31) The movement of objects even from is house
into the courtyard; as will be explained infra.
(32) Though the other tenants renounced their
shares in their favor.
(33) To his neighbors.
(34) Which they presented to him.
(35) Because, while the courtyard is their common
domain, their houses are their individual property
and it is forbidden to carry objects from a private
house into a courtyard which belongs to another
tenant as well as to its owner.
(36) To one's neighbor, so that the use of the
courtyard shall be unrestricted.
(37) Of the Sabbath eve.
(38) On the use of the courtyard by his neighbors.
His act is regarded as one of re-acquisition of the
share he has previously presented to them.
(39) Since only HIS HOUSE was mentioned.
(40) To the other tenants who are allowed to carry
objects from their houses into the courtyard and
from the courtyard into their houses.
(41) In their favor.
(42) Which he renounced simultaneously with his
share in the courtyard.
(43) The anonymous author of this part of our
Mishnah who differs from R. Eliezer's ruling
(supra 26b) that a tenant's renunciation of his
share in a courtyard implies ipso facto his
renunciation of his right to his house.

(44) By abstaining from taking out any object

from his house into the courtyard or vice versa
and by using the courtyard in connection with the
other tenants houses only.
(45) Fictitious number, sc. any number of people
more than one.
(46) The ruling that IF THEY PRESENTED
THEIR SHARES TO HIM, HE IS PERMITTED,
etc. though the first renounced his right in their
favor in consequence of which (as was explained
supra) it was laid down in the first clause that
THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED.
(47) Spoken of in the first clause of our Mishnah
(cf. prev. n.).
(48) I.e., the presentation of THEIR HOUSES TO
HIM in the clause under discussion.
(49) Not, as has been assumed, after he has
renounced his right in their favor. This clause, in
other words, is entirely independent of the first
one.
(50) Since even in the absence of the other tenants
the two would have imposed restrictions upon
each other.
(51) After the other tenants had renounced the
shares in favor of the two.
(52) Which now presumably included he shares
that the other tenants had renounced in his favor.
(53) As in the case where all the tenants presented
their shares to one of them.
(54) On account of the other tenant who was
imposing restrictions upon him. Owing to these
restrictions the presentation of the other tenants
shares was useless and, therefore, invalid. As he
could not acquire their shares he could not
obviously renounce them in favor of anyone else.
(55) BUT THEIR HOUSES ARE PERMITTED
because, as was explained in the Gemara supra, he
renounced his right in their favor.
(56) IF THEY PRESENTED THEIR SHARES
TO HIM, etc.
(57) From a previous ruling in our Mishnah
according to which any number of tenants, which
obviously includes two, may present their shares
to one of their number.

Eruvin 70a
that this1 should be forbidden, as a
preventive measure against the possible
assumption that one may also renounce his
share in favor of two,2 hence we were
informed that no such possibility need be
considered.
BUT MAY NOT ACQUIRE ANY. What
need was there for this ruling?3 It4 was
required only for this case: Even where they5

73

ERUVIN 53a-79a
said to him,6 Acquire our shares on the
condition that you transfer them.7
Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If five tenants
live in the same courtyard and one of them
forgot to join in the erub, is it necessary,
when he renounces his right to his share,8 to
renounce it in favor of every individual
tenant or not?
He must, the other replied. renounce it in
favor of every individual tenant. He9 pointed
out to him10 the following objection: A tenant
who did not join in an erub11 may present
his share12 to one of those who joined in the
erub;13 two tenants who joined in an erub14
may present their shares15 to the one who did
not join in their erub; and two tenants who
did not join in an erub16 may present their
shares15 to the two of their neighbors who
joined in an erub or to one neighbour17
who18 did not prepare an erub.
One, however, who joined in an erub19 may
not present his share to one20 who did not
join with them21 nor may two who joined in
an erub present their shares to the two who
did not join,22 nor may the two who did not
join in an erub present their shares to the
other two who also did not join.22 At all
events it was stated in the first clause, A
tenant who did not join in an erub may
present his share to one of those who joined
in an erub. Now, how is one to understand
the circumstances? If there was no other
tenant with him,23 with whom could he have
joined in an erub? It is consequently obvious
that there must have been another tenant
with him, and yet it was stated: To one of
those who joined in the erub!24
And Rabbah?24 Here25 we are dealing with
a case where there was one26 who died.27 But
if one26 was there and died, how will you
explain the final clause: One, however, who
joined in an erub may not present his share
to one who did not join with them? If one26
was there only before and is now dead why
should not this be permitted?28 It is
consequently obvious that he26 was still there

and, since the final clause is a case where he

was there, must not the first clause also deal
with one who was still alive?29
What an argument! Each clause may deal
with a different case.30 You may have proof
that this is so,31 for in the final section of the
first clause it was stated, And two tenants
who did not join in an erub may present
their shares to the tow of their neighbors who
joined in an erub, from which it follows: To
two only32 but not merely to one.33
Abaye, however, explained: What is meant
by To two? To one of the two. If so, why34
was it not stated:35 To one who joined in the
erub36 or to one who did not?37 This is a
difficulty. A38 tenant who did not join in an
erub may present his share to one of those
who joined in the erub refers according to
Abaye to a case where the other tenant39 was
also alive; and by this we are informed that it
is not necessary to renounce one's share in
favor of each individual tenant.
According to Rabbah this refers to a case
where the other tenant39 was first40 alive and
then41 died; and the point in the ruling42 is
that no preventive measure had been enacted
against the possibility that sometimes the
one39 may happen to be alive [and the same
procedure43 might be followed]. And44 two
tenants who joined in an erub may present
their shares to the one who did not join in
their erub. Is not this obvious?45
It might have been presumed46 that the
tenant, since he did not join in the erub,
should be penalized,47 hence we were
informed [that no such penalization had been
enacted]. And48 two tenants who did not join
in an erub may present their shares to the
two of their neighbors who joined in an
erub.
According to Rabbah this final clause49 was
taught in order to explain the sense of the
first clause.50 According to Abaye51 this52 was
required on account of the ruling relating to
two tenants who did not join In an erub.

74

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Since it might have been presumed that
renunciation on their part should be
forbidden as a preventive measure against
the possibility of a renunciation in their
favour,53 hence we were informed [that no
such measure was deemed necessary]. Or to
one neighbor who did not prepare an erub.
What need was there for this ruling?54
It might have been presumed that those
rulings55 applied only where some of the
tenants joined in an erub and only some did
not, but that where all the tenants failed to
join in an erub they should be penalized56 in
order that the law of erub shall not be
forgotten.57 hence we were informed [that no
penalization was imposed]. One, however,
who joined in an erub may not present his
share to one who did not join with them.
According to Abaye this final clause58 was
taught in order to indicate the meaning of the
first clause.59
According to Rabbah the final clause was
taught on account of the first one.60 Nor may
two who joined in an erub present their
shares to the two who did not join. What
need again was there for this ruling?61
It was required in that case only where one of
them62 renounced his share in favor of the
other.62 As it might have been presumed that
the, latter should be permitted the
unrestricted use of this courtyard.63 hence we
were informed that the law was not so,
because the former, at the time he made his
renunciation, was not himself permitted the
unrestricted use of that courtyard. Nor may
the two who did not join in an erub present
their shares to the other two who also did not
join. What again was the need for this
ruling?61
58 t64

was necessary only for this case: Even65

where they66 said to him,67 acquire our
shares on the condition that you transfer
them.68 Raba inquired of R. Nahman: May
all heir69 renounce his share?70

(1) The presentation of their shares by two tenants

to one.
(2) Lit., he might come to renounce for them.
(3) Which is virtually a repetition of the previous
ruling. TWO ... IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS
UPON ONE ANOTHER.
(4) The apparently superfluous repetition of the
restriction.
(5) The tenants who presented their shares.
(6) One of the two who forgot to contribute to the
erub.
(7) To the other tenant. Though in a case like this
the one tenant might well be presumed to be
acting as their agent to the other tenant, yet for
the reason given (cf. supra p. 436, n. 11 and text),
he MAY NOT ACQUIRE their shares.
(8) In the courtyard in favor of its neighbors.
(9) Abaye.
(10) Rabbah.
(11) With his two neighbors who prepared one
between themselves.
(12) In their courtyard.
(13) And, since this one is associated in the erub
with the other, both of them are thereby permitted
the unrestricted use of the courtyard.
(14) In a courtyard in which they lived with a
third tenant.
(15) In their courtyard.
(16) With the two other tenants who lived in the
same courtyard.
(17) If he is the only other neighbor.
(18) Like themselves.
(19) With one of his two neighbors.
(20) The other of his two neighbors (cf. prev. n.).
(21) His presentation is of no avail on account of
the share of the neighbors who did not present his.
(22) Since TWO TENANTS MAY ... NOT
ACQUIRE ANY.
(23) With the tenant who prepared the erub.
(24) How then could Rabbah maintain that the
renunciation must be made in favor of every
individual tenant?
(25) In the Baraitha cited by Abaye.
(26) A tenant with whom an erub was prepared.
(27) By the time the third tenant presented his
share. As at that time only two tenants occupied
the courtyard one may well renounce his share in
favor of the other. On the question of the heirs of
the deceased who might be expected to inherit his
share and thus impose the same restrictions as he
himself, v. Rash and Tosaf. a.I.
(28) Why should not the survivor be allowed to
renounce his share.
(29) The objection against Rabbah thus arises
again.
(30) Lit., that as it is, and that, etc.
(31) That the first clause deals with a case where
one of the two tenants who joined in the erub
died.

75

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(32) Lit., yes. i.e., the presentation must be made
to each of the two.
(33) Of the two.
(34) Instead of two.
(35) As was the case in the first clause.
(36) Since One tenant cannot join in an erub with
himself it would be obvious that the reference was
to one of two tenants.
(37) Cf. prev. n.
(38) The Gemara now proceeds to discuss the
Baraitha cited, clause by clause.
(39) Who joined in the erub with the one
mentioned.
(40) When the erub was prepared.
(41) When the renunciation was made.
(42) Which seems superfluous In view of the rule
that even two tenants may renounce their shares
in favor of one, and much more so one in favor of
one.
(43) Of renouncing in favor of one of the two only.
(44) Cf. supra n. 10.
(45) Since the latter may well renounce his share
in their favor, on account of the erub in which
they have joined. No preventive measures against
the possibility that one tenant might renounce his
share in favor of two, could have been required.
Now, since It was already stated in the first clause
that one tenant may renounce, what need was
there to mention also two?
(46) Since the first clause deals with a
renunciation in favor of those who did join in an
erub.
(47) And no renunciation in his favor should be
permissible.
(48) V. p. 489, n. 10.
(49) Which specifies that renunciation must be
made in favor of each of the two tenants.
(50) Sc. that it deals with a case where one of the
two tenants who joined in an erub died before the
renunciation was made. Had he not died the
renunciation would have had to be made (cf. prev.
n.) in favor of each of the two.
(51) Who explained supra that to the two meant
to one of the two.
(52) The clause under discussion which, since no
difference could be made between one who makes
a renunciation and two who make a renunciation,
seems superfluous in view of the first clause which
allows one tenant to make a renunciation in favor
of one of another two tenants.
(53) Which, as stated supra, is forbidden.
(54) Which is implied in the previous ones.
(55) Enumerated previously, according to which
such renunciation is permitted.
(56) By depriving them of the right to
renunciation.
(57) Were renunciation allowed, no erub would
ever be prepared and the younger generation
would in consequence remain ignorant of the
institution of erub.

(58) Which is apparently superfluous since in view

of the fact that one tenant did not renounce his
share the renunciation of the other alone cannot
be effective.
(59) Sc that it refers to a case where both tenants
who had joined in the erub were alive.
(60) As the first clause taught that a tenant who
did not join in an erub may present his share to
one of those who joined the final clause taught
that if the case was reversed presentation is
forbidden. The first clause, however, deals with a
case where one of the two tenants who joined in
the erub was dead while the final one deals with a
case where both tenants were alive.
(61) Which is implied in the preceding rulings.
(62) Of those who did not join in the erub.
(63) As is the case where all tenants presented
their shares to one of their own number.
(64) The superfluous repetition.
(65) Cf. Bah.
(66) The tenants who presented their shares.
(67) The one of the two who did not join in their
erub.
(68) To the other of the two tenants who did not
join in the erub (cf. supra p. 487, n. 10).
(69) Whose father, from whom he inherited his
estate, had forgotten to contribute to the erub of
his courtyard and died on the Sabbath.
(70) Which he inherited (cf. prev. n.) on that day
and which his father had not renounced in favor
of his neighbors.

Eruvin 70b
Is it only in the case where [a tenant can], if
he wishes, join in the erub on the previous
day1 that he can also renounce his share,2 but
this [heir], since he could not join in the erub
on the previous day even if he wished,3 may
not renounce his share, or is it possible that
an heir steps into his father's place?4
I, the other replied, hold that he may
renounce his share, but those [scholars] of the
school of Samuel learned that he may not do
so. He5 thereupon pointed out the following
objection against him:6 This is the general
rule: Whatever is permitted during a part of
the Sabbath remains permitted throughout
the Sabbath and whatever is forbidden
during a part of the Sabbath remains
forbidden throughout the Sabbath, the only
exception being the case of the man who
renounced his share.7 Whatever is permitted
during a part of the Sabbath remains

76

ERUVIN 53a-79a
permitted throughout the Sabbath, as is, for
instance, the case of an erub8 that was
prepared for the purpose of carrying objects
through a certain door9 and that door was
closed up.10 or one that was prepared for the
purpose of carrying objects through a certain
window9 and that window was closed up.10
This is the general rule11 includes the case
of an alley whose cross-beam12 or side-post2
had been removed.13 Whatever is forbidden
during a part of the Sabbath remains
forbidden throughout the Sabbath, as, for
instance, in the case of two houses, that were
respectively situated on the two sides of a
public domain which gentiles surrounded
with a wall during the Sabbath.14 What does
the expression15
This is the general rule,16 include? It
includes the case of a gentile17 who died on
the Sabbath.18 Now here It was stated: The
only exception being the case of the man who
renounced his share,19 from which20 it
follows, does it not, that only he21 may do so
but not his heir?22
Read, The only exception being the law of
renunciation.23 He24 raised another objection
against him:25 If one of the tenants of a
courtyard26 died, having left his share to a
man in the street,27 the latter28 imposes
restrictions,29 if this occurred while it was yet
day,30 but if it occurred after dusk31 he
imposes no restrictions. If, however, a man in
the street32 died, having left his share to one
of the tenants of the courtyard, he imposes no
restrictions, if this occurred while it was yet
day,33 but if it occurred after dusk,34 he
imposes restrictions. Now why should he
impose restrictions?35 Let him renounce his
share!36 The ruling that he imposes
restrictions applies only so long as he did not
renounce37 his share.
Come and hear: If an Israelite and a
proselyte lived in one dwelling38 and the
proselyte died39 while it was yet day40
(1) Lit., yesterday, i.e., the Sabbath eve.

(2) On the Sabbath.

(3) Since at that time he had not yet had any share
in the courtyard.
(4) Lit., is his father's leg, and is consequently
entitled to all his rights.
(5) Raba.
(6) R. Nahman.
(7) This is explained presently.
(8) Between two courtyards.
(9) That communicated between the two
courtyards.
(10) By some obstructions that happened to fall
into it during the Sabbath. As it was permissible to
carry objects from one courtyard into the other
through the door (or the window) during a part of
the Sabbath, the permissibility remains in force
even after the door (or the window) was closed up.
It is, for instance, permissible to throw objects
from one courtyard into the other across the
obstruction or through minor communication
holes (cf. infra 76a).
(11) Which implies that there must be some other
cases also but they were not here specified.
(12) So MS.M. and Rashi. Cur. ed. have the plural
form.
(13) During the Sabbath. Although the use of an
alley that was not provided with cross-beam or
side-post is else where restricted. the removal of
either in this case, since the alley was well
provided with the one or the other during a part
of the Sabbath, does not affect the tenants right to
its continued and unrestricted use. This ruling is
not covered by the one specified, since in the latter
case the walls remained intact while in the former
they were absent (cf. supra 17b).
(14) As in the absence of the wall no erub was
admissible on the Sabbath eve, it is forbidden to
move objects from any of the houses into the
newly enclosed area, even if one of the
householders renounced his right in that area in
favor of his neighbor.
(15) In the introduction to the first clause, which
presumably refers also to the final clause.
(16) V. supra p. 492, n. 11.
(17) Who lived in the same courtyard with
Israelites aid whose right in the courtyard
Precluded his neighbors from joining in an erub
unless they previously hired his share from him.
(18) Since no erub was allowed on the Sabbath
eve and no renunciation of rights was permissible
during the first part of the Sabbath while he was
alive, no renunciation is permitted even after his
death. This ruling also could not be inferred from
the one specified, since in the latter case no erub
could possibly have been provided on the Sabbath
eve while in that of the former it could well have
been prepared if (cf. prev. n.) the gentile's share
had been hired.
(19) Sc. only in the case of such a renunciation
during the Sabbath are the restrictions, which on

77

ERUVIN 53a-79a
account of the absence of erub were previously in
force, removed for the rest of the day.
(20) Since only the man who renounced his
share, not his heir, was mentioned.
(21) The original householder.
(22) Lit., he, yes; heir, not. How then could R.
Nahman maintain that an heir may also renounce
his share?
(23) Either by the original owner or by his heir.
(24) Raba.
(25) R. Nahman.
(26) Who joined in erub with his neighbors (cf.
Tosaf. a.l.).
(27) Sc. a Stranger, one who did not live in the
same courtyard.
(28) Since he did not join in the erub.
(29) On the use of the courtyard by its tenants. As
the new owner of the house he imposes restrictions
though he does not himself live in it, his case being
similar to that of the owner of a storehouse for
straw or of a cattle-pen (cf. infra 72b).
(30) Of the Sabbath eve, when the erub was not
yet effective.
(31) When the erub was already in force and the
tenants were in consequence allowed the
unrestricted use of their courtyard during a part
of the Sabbath.
(32) Sc. one who did not live in that courtyard but
was the owner of a house in it.
(33) Since he has sufficient time before the
Sabbath to join in the erub in respect of that
house.
(34) When no erub may any longer be prepared.
(35) In agreement with R. Nahman that an heir is
entitled to renounce the share he inherited.
(36) And thus enable the tenants to enjoy the
unrestricted use of their courtyard.
(37) Lit., what also (is meant by) he imposes
restrictions that he learned? Until he would
renounce.
(38) Or barn, the doors of their compartments or
huts opening into one court.
(39) Leaving no heirs.
(40) Of the Sabbath eve.

Eruvin 71a
even though1 another Israelite2 had taken
possession of his estate, [the latter] imposes
restrictions;3 [but if he died] after dusk4 no
restrictions are imposed even though no
other Israelite took possession of his estate.
Now is not this statement self-contradictory?
You first stated: While it was yet day, even
though another Israelite had taken possession
[the latter] imposes restrictions and,5 much
more so6 if one did not take possession of it;

[but is not the law just] the reverse, viz., that

where no one took possession no restrictions
are imposed?7 R. Papa replied. Read:
Although he had not taken possession. But
was it not stated: Though he had taken
possession? It is this that was meant:
Though he did not take possession while it
was yet day and did so only after dusk8 he
imposes restrictions, since9 he could have
taken possession while it was yet day.10 After
dusk, no restrictions are imposed even
though no other Israelite took possession of
his estate. You Say, Even though no other
Israelite took possession of his estate and11
much less so12 if one did take possession; but
is not the law just the reverse, viz., that where
one did take possession restrictions are
imposed?13 R. Papa replied: Read:
Though he did take possession.14 but was it
not stated: Even, though he did not take
possession? It is this that was meant:
Though he took possession15 after dusk he
imposes no restrictions, since he could not
take possession while it was yet day.16 At all
events it was stated in the first clause that
restrictions are imposed. But why should
restrictions be imposed? Let him17 renounce
his share? The ruling that he imposes
restrictions18 applies only so long as he does
not make his renunciation.
R. Johanan replied: The Baraithas19
represent the view of Beth Shammai who
ruled that no renunciation is allowed on the
Sabbath.20 For we learned: WHEN MUST
ONE'S SHARE BE PRESENTED? BETH
SHAMMAI RULED: WHILE IT IS YET
DAY AND BETH HILLEL RULED: AFTER
DUSK. Said Ulla: What is Beth Hillel's
reason?21 The case of renunciation is on a par
with that of saying,22 You should have gone
to the better kind.23
What, objected Abaye, is the comparison
with the case of saying. You should have
gone to the better kind, where the gentile
died on the Sabbath?24 Rather it is this
principle on which they are here at variance:
Beth Shammai are of the opinion that the
renunciation of a domain25 is like conferring

78

ERUVIN 53a-79a
acquisition26 of a domain [to another], but
conferring acquisition of a domain on the
Sabbath is forbidden;27 while Beth Hillel are
of the opinion that renunciation is merely the
giving up of one's domain, and the giving up
of a domain on the Sabbath is perfectly
permissible.
MISHNAH. IF A HOUSEHOLDER WAS IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS NEIGHBOURS,28
WITH THE ONE IN WINE AND WITH THE
OTHER IN WINE,29 THEY NEED NOT
PREPARE AN ERUB;30 BUT IF HIS
PARTNERSHIP WAS WITH THE ONE IN
WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL,31 IT IS
NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN AN
ERUB.32 R. SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN
THE ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED
THEY JOIN IN AN ERUB.
GEMARA. Rab explained:33 Only [if the
wine34 was kept] in one container.35 Said
Raba: A deduction also supports this view.
For it was stated: WITH THE ONE IN
WINE AND WITH THE OTHER IN OIL, IT
IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO JOIN IN
AN ERUB; now if you grant that the first
clause deals with one container and the final
clause with two containers both rulings are
quite correct,36 but if you contend that the
first clause deals with two containers and the
final clause deals with two containers, why.
[it might be objected,] should a difference be
made between wine and wine and between
wine and oil?37 Wine and wine,38 Abaye
retorted, can properly be mixed,39 but wine
and oil cannot properly be mixed.40
R. SIMEON RULED: NEITHER IN THE
ONE CASE NOR IN THE OTHER NEED
THEY JOIN IN AN ERUB. Even if the
partnership was with the one in wine and
with the other in oil?41 Rabbah replied:
Here we are dealing with a courtyard that
was situated between two alleys,42 R. Simeon
following his own View.43 For we learned: R.
Simeon remarked: To what may this case be
compared? To three courtyards that open
one into the other and also into a public
domain, where, if the two outer ones made an

erub with the middle one, it is permitted to

have access to them and they are permitted
access to it, but the two other ones are
forbidden access to one another.44 Said
Abaye to him:45 Are the two cases at all alike,
seeing that there46 it was stated: The two
outer ones are forbidden, while here It was
stated that THEY NEED NOT JOIN IN AN
ERUB at all?47 The ruling that48 THEY
NEED NOT JOIN IN AN ERUB applies
only to one between the neighbors and the
householder, but the neighbors among
themselves must certainly join in an erub.
(1) This will be discussed presently.
(2) The estate of a proselyte, who has no legal
heirs, may be appropriated by the first person
who takes possession of it.
(3) As the new owner did not join in the erub he
imposes restrictions on the use of the court by the
surviving Israelite.
(4) V. supra n. 2.
(5) Since the clause is introduced by even
though.
(6) Lit., and it is not required (to state).
(7) There being no one to impose them.
(8) The purport of the expression being, even
though... had taken possession after dusk, so that
during a part of the Sabbath the place was free
from restrictions.
(9) The proselyte having died before dusk.
(10) As the proselyte's share was in a state of
suspended ownership even when the Sabbath had
set in the entire place could not be regarded as a
permitted domain even during a part of the
Sabbath.
(11) Since the clause is introduced by even
though.
(12) Lit., and it is not required (to state).
(13) On account of that persons share.
(14) He nevertheless imposes no restrictions, since
during a part of the Sabbath, prior to his
acquisition of the estate, the place was free from
all restrictions.
(15) Even though qualifying this implied clause.
(16) When the proselyte was still alive (cf. supra n.
7).
(17) The Israelite taking legal possession of the
estate of the deceased proselyte being in a position
of an heir.
(18) Lit., what (is the meaning of he) imposes
restrictions that has been taught.
(19) According to which an heir imposes
restrictions and from which objection was raised
against R. Nahman.
(20) Hence no means are available to an heir for
the removal of the restrictions that begin with the

79

ERUVIN 53a-79a
incidence of the Sabbath. R. Nahman, however,
may disagree with their view, following that of
Beth Hillel.
(21) For allowing renunciation on the Sabbath.
(22) Lit., it is made as (if he) says to a person
whom he found in his field setting aside terumah
from a certain kind of produce on his behalf
without his previous consent.
(23) B.M. 22a. The terumah is valid if there was a
better kind in the field; because the owner, by his
present consent, is assumed retrospectively to
have appointed the person as his agent. Similarly
in the case of renunciation: The tenant's present
act of renunciation is taken as an indication of his
retrospective desire to join with the other tenants
in their erub and that his failing to do so was due
to mere forgetfulness.
(24) In the latter case, surely, retrospective
intention could not possibly be assumed.
(25) l.e., one's share in a court.
(26) [Reading instead of of cur. edd. v.
Tosaf. s.v. ].
(27) Because it is on a par with a commercial
transaction.
Hence
their
prohibition
of
renunciation on the Sabbath.
(28) In an alley.
(29) Sc. they were all joint holders in one edible
commodity that (as will be explained infra) was
kept in one container.
(30) Their partnership in the commodity serves
also the purpose of erub.
(31) Sc. two different commodities that must be
kept in separate containers.
(32) Since only a commodity in joint ownership
that is kept in one container may be regarded as
erub.
(33) The first clause of our Mishnah.
(34) Which they possessed in common.
(35) NEED THEY NOT PREPARE AN ERUB
(cf. supra p. 496, n. 12).
(36) As the wine spoken of in the first clause was
kept in one container no other erub was
consequently required, while in the case of the
wine and the oil spoken of in the final clause, since
they were kept in two containers, a special erub
was rightly required.
(37) Sc. why should an erub be necessary in the
latter case if it is not required in the former?
(38) Though kept in two containers.
(39) Hence it may serve as an erub even if it has
not yet been mixed.
(40) As they must always be kept apart they
cannot be regarded as erub if they have not been
expressly set aside for that purpose. Hence,
contrary to the submission of Raba, the first
clause also may be dealing with two containers.
(41) But how could such a ruling be justified in
view of the fact that the two commodities cannot
properly be mixed?

(42) The tenants of which had a stock of wine in

common with the residents of the one alley and a
stock of oil in common with those of the other, so
that the wine and the oil do not serve the purpose
of one erub but that of two erubs, one for each
alley.
(43) That the residents of one courtyard may join
in two erubs with the residents of two alleys
respectively even though the latter, not having
been joined to each other by an erub, are
forbidden access from one to the other.
(44) Supra 45b, q.v. notes. Similarly (cf. prev. n.)
in the case of the wine and oil, though the two
alleys (cf. supra p. 497, n. 10) were not joined to
one another, and access between them is
forbidden, the courtyard may be joined to both of
them and access between it and the alleys is
permitted.
(45) Rabbah.
(46) In the Mishnah cited.
(47) Implying full permissibility of access.
(48) Lit., what.

Eruvin 71b
R. Joseph.1 however, replied:2 R. Simeon and
the Rabbis differ on the same principle as
that on which R. Johanan b. Nuri and the
Rabbis differ.3 For we learned: If some oil4
floated on wine4 and a tebul yom5 touched the
oil, he6 causes the oil only to be unfit;7 but R.
Johanan b. Nuri ruled: They both form a
connection with each other.8 The Rabbis9
may hold the same view as the Rabbis10 while
R. Simeon9 may hold the same view as R.
Johanan b. Nuri.11
It was taught: R. Eleazar12 b. Taddai ruled:
In either case13 it is necessary for them to join
in an erub. Even if the partnership was with
the one In wine and with the other also in
wine?14 Rabbah explained: Where this
[householder] comes with his lagin15 [of wine]
and pours [it into the common cask] and the
other comes with his lagin and pours it in, no
one disputes the ruling that16 this alone is a
valid erub.17 They only differ where the
householders bought a cask of wine in
partnership.18 R. Eleazar b. Taddai is of the
opinion that there is no such rule as
bererah19 while the Rabbis maintain that the
rule of bererah holds good.20

80

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Joseph explained: R. Eleazar b. Taddai
and the Rabbis differ on the question
whether it is permissible to rely upon
shittuf15 where an erub is required.21 the one
Master22 holding that It is not permissible to
rely on it23 while the Masters24 maintain that
it is permissible to rely on it.25
Said R. Joseph: Whence do I derive this?26
[From the following:] Since Rab Judah stated
in the name of Rab, The halachah is in
agreement with R. Meir27 and R. Berona
stated in the name of Rab, The halachah is
in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Taddai.28
Now what is the reason?29 Obviously30
because both rulings are based on the same
principle.27
Said Abaye to him: If the principle is the
same what need was there to lay down the
halachah, twice?31 It is of this that we are
informed: That in matters of32 erub we
[sometimes] adopt33 two restrictive rulings.34
What is the ruling of R. Meir and what is
that of the Rabbis?35 [Those about which] it
was taught: An erub of courtyards must be
prepared with bread; but wine, even if
preferred. may not be used for erub,36
Shittuf of an alley may be done even37 with
wine;38 but bread, if preferred. May
[obviously]39 be used for the shittuf. An erub
must be prepared for courtyards40 even
where shittuf is arranged for the alleys41 in
order that the law of erub may not be
forgotten by the children who might believe
that their fathers42 had been preparing no
erub; so R. Meir.
The Sages, however, ruled: Either erub or
shittuf [is enough]. R. Nehumi43 and
Rabbah44 differ on the interpretation of this
statement. One maintains that in the case of
bread45 no one disputes the ruling that one46
is enough47 and that they only differ in the
case of wine,48
(1) Maintaining, contrary to the view of Rabbah,
that R. Simeon in our Mishnah was referring to
courtyards in the same alley.

(2) To the objection raised supra as to how could

R. Simeon regard two commodities like wine and
oil as one valid erub.
(3) It. Simeon, as will be shown presently, holding
the same view as the former.
(4) Of terumah.
(5) V. Glos.
(6) On account of his levitical uncleanness.
(7) For consumption.
(8) T.Y. II, 5; the touching of the one is, therefore,
regarded as the touching of both.
(9) Of our Mishnah.
(10) In the Mishnah cited, who regard wine and oil
as separate and distinct commodities.
(11) Who holds that oil and wine can be treated as
the component parts of one liquid.
(12) So MS.M.
(13) This is discussed anon.
(14) But why should an erub be necessary in such
a case?
(15) V. Glos.
(16) Even where the wine was not originally mixed
for the purpose of erub.
(17) Since every householder has contributed Its
individual share to the common stock.
(18) So that the individual contributions were
never distinguishable from one another.
(19) V. Glos. In consequence none of the
householders has any distinguishable share in the
wine.
(20) So that every householder may be regarded as
having contributed a definite and distinguishable
share to the common contents of the cask.
(21) l.e., whether the amalgamation of the
courtyards of an alley by shittuf, for the purpose
of facilitating movement in it, exempts the tenants
of the courtyards from erub for the purpose of
carrying objects from one courtyard into the
other.
(22) R. Eleazar b. Taddai.
(23) Hence his ruling that in either case an erub
must be prepared.
(24) The Rabbis.
(25) No erub, therefore, is required. Since the
residents are united by shittuf in their alley they
are also deemed to be united in their courtyards;
and they are consequently permitted to convey
objects from one courtyard into another through
doors that open from one into the other.
(26) That the point at issue between R. Eleazar b.
Taddai and the Rabbis is the Question whether
shittuf can also serve the purpose of erub.
(27) That it is not permissible to rely upon shittuf
where an erub is required.
(28) That in either case an erub must be
prepared.
(29) That Rab pronounced the halachah to be in
agreement with both R. Meir and R. Eleazar b.
Taddai.
(30) Lit., not?

81

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(31) It was admittedly necessary for Rab to state
that the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir,
since otherwise the principle underlying R.
Eleazar b. Taddai's ruling would have been
unascertainable, and erroneous conclusions
affecting the laws of erub might have been
arrived at (cf. Rashi); but why, it is asked, was it
also necessary for Rab to state that the halachah is
in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Taddai?
(32) As in this particular case (cf. Tosaf.).
(33) This is the reading of R. Han. Cur. edd. we
do not adopt (cf. Rashi); v. Tosaf. s.v. .
(34) Laid down by the same authority, though one
of them is opposed by other authorities. In this
case the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir
that where an erub is required, shittuf may not be
relied upon irrespective of whether it was done
with (a) wine concerning which the Rabbis agree
with him or (b) bread about which the Rabbis
differ.
(35) To which reference has just been made.
(36) An erub essentially serves the purpose of
constituting a dwelling or habitation (cf. supra
49a) and bread alone of all commodities is
regarded as important enough to constitute one.
(37) Cf. Rashi. According to Tosaf. the rendering
might be, should preferably be done
(38) Since the purpose of shittuf is not the
association of the house but that of the courtyards
which are not regarded as dwellings (cf. supra n.
5).
(39) Cf. Rashi, or (according to Tosaf.) also.
(40) Either for each one separately, in the interests
of its own tenants, or, if doors open from one
courtyard into another, for several courtyards
together, to enable their tenants to have access to
each other through their courtyard doors.
(41) To enable the tenants to carry objects from
one courtyard into another through the alley. In
the absence of shittuf this is forbidden, though the
right of carrying through the communicating
doors remains unaffected. In the case of shittuf it
is permitted to carry objects between the
courtyards either through the alley or through
their communicating doors even where each
courtyard had prepared a separate erub for its
own tenants only.
(42) Lit., who would say: Our fathers.
(43) Var. lec. Rehumi (MS.M. and Bah).
(44) Var. lec. Rabbah b. Joseph (Bah).
(45) Since it is suitable for both erub and shittuf.
(46) Either shittuf or erub.
(47) Since one may also serve the purpose of the
other.
(48) Where it was used for "shittuf. According to
R. Meir this alone is not enough since wine is
inadmissible for erub; while according to the
Rabbis once wine has become effective in shittuf it
is ipso facto effective for erub, since shittuf may
be relied upon where an erub is required.

Eruvin 72a
while the other maintains that in the case of
wine1 no one disputes the ruling that the two2
are necessary3 and that they only differ in the
case of bread.4
An objection was raised: The Sages,
however, ruled: Either erub or shittuf is
enough. Does not this mean that it is
permissible to prepare an erub in a
courtyard with bread or arrange shittuf in an
alley with wine?5
R. Giddal citing Rab replied: It is this that
was meant: Either an erub for the
courtyards6 is prepared with bread, and
unrestricted movement Is permitted in both
the alley and the courtyards;7 or shittuf for
the alley is made with bread, and
unrestricted movement is again permitted in
both.7
Rab Judah citing Rab stated: The halachah8
is in agreement with R. Meir; R. Huna,
however, stated: The customary practice Is
In agreement with R. Meir, while R. Johanan
stated: The people are in the habit of acting
in agreement with R. Meir.
MISHNAH. IF FIVE COMPANIES SPENT THE
SABBATH IN ONE HALL9 EACH COMPANY,
BETH
SHAMMAI
RULED,
MUST10
CONTRIBUTE SEPARATELY TO THE
ERUB;11 BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: ALL OF
THEM12 CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB ONLY
ONE SHARE.13 THEY14 AGREE, HOWEVER,
THAT WHERE SOME OF THEM OCCUPY
ROOMS15 OR UPPER CHAMBERS16 A
SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ERUB
MUST BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY.
GEMARA. R. Nahman stated: The dispute17
relates only to partitions of stakes18 but
where the partitions19 were ten handbreadths
high all20 agree that a separate contribution
to the erub must be made for each company.
Others read: R. Nahman stated: The
dispute17 relates also to partitions of stakes.21

82

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Hiyya and R. Simeon son of Rabbi differ
on the interpretation of our Mishnah.22 One
holds that the dispute23 relates only to
partitions that reach to the ceiling, but where
they do not reach it24 all25 agree that only one
contribution to the erub need be made for all
of them; while the other holds that the
dispute23 relates Only to partitions that do
not reach the ceiling but where they do reach
it all20 agree that a separate contribution to
the erub is necessary for each company.
(1) Since it is unsuitable for shittuf purposes.
(2) Both Shittuf and erub.
(3) Even the Rabbis agree that wine cannot
become effective for erub even by way of shittuf
for which alone it may be used.
(4) That was used either for erub or for shittuf, R.
Meir maintaining that even in this case one cannot
do service for the other.
(5) And either presumably suffices for both alley
and courtyards. How then is this to be reconciled
with the second view that in the case of wine no
one disputes the ruling that the two are
necessary?
(6) So MS. M. Cur. edd. have the sing.
courtyard.
(7) Lit., here and here.
(8) V. supra p. 438,nn. 11-13.
(9) Traklin, triclinium, dining-room. The
reference is to a large room that was subdivided
by partitions into separate compartments each
being occupied by one of the companies and
having a separate door to the courtyard into
which doors of other houses also open.
(10) Since each is deemed to occupy a separate
domain.
(11) That is prepared either for all the tenants of
the courtyard or for the occupants of the hall
alone.
(12) Being regarded as living in one and the same
domain (cf. Gemara infra).
(13) If they join the tenants of the courtyard.
Among themselves (cf. prev. n.) they need no
erub at all.
(14) Beth Hillel.
(15) On the ground floor.
(16) All of which are completely separated from
one another and from the hall, and have direct
access to the courtyard.
(17) In our Mishnah.
(18) Mesifas, a low partition of stakes or pegs.
Only in such a case do Beth Hillel regard the
entire hall as One domain.
(19) Separating the quarters of one company from
another.

(20) Even Beth Hillel.

(21) I.e.. Beth Shammai maintain their view not
only where the partitions were ten handbreadths
high but even where
they were low.
(22) Lit., on it.
(23) Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
(24) Although they are ten handbreadths high.
(25) Even Beth Shammai.

Eruvin 72b
An objection was raised: R. Judah ha-Sabba1
stated, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not
dispute the ruling that where partitions2
reach the ceiling a separate contribution to
the erub is required on the part of each
company; they only differ3 where the
partitions do not reach the ceiling in which
case Beth Shammai maintain that a separate
contribution to the erub must be made for
each company, while Beth Hillel maintain
that one contribution to the erub suffices for
all of them. Now, against him who stated that
the dispute4 related only to partitions that
reached the ceiling this5 presents an
objection; in favor of him who stated that
their dispute4 related only to partitions that
did not reach the ceiling this6 provides
support; while against that version according
to which R. Nahman stated the dispute
relates only to partitions of stakes7 this8
presents an objection. Does this,6 however,
present an objection also against that version
according to which R. Nahman stated: The
dispute relates also to partitions of
stakes?9
R. Nahman can answer you: They differ in
the case of partitions10 and this applies also to
partitions of stakes, and the only reason why
their difference of view was expressed in the
case of partitions is in order to inform you to
what extent Beth Hillel venture to apply their
principle.11 But why did they not express
their difference of view in the case of
partitions of stakes in order to inform you of
the extent to which Beth Shammai, venture to
apply their principle?12 Information on
the extent of a permitted course13 is
preferable.14

83

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Nahman citing Rab stated: The halachah
is in agreement with R. Judah ha-Sabbar.15
Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: All inference from
the wording of our Mishnah also leads to the
same conclusion. For it was stated: THEY
AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE
SOME OF THEM OCCUPY ROOMS OR
UPPER CHAMBERS A SEPARATE
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FRUIT MUST
BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY; now
what was meant by ROOMS and what by
UPPER CHAMBERS? If it be suggested that
by the term ROOMS proper16 rooms,17 and
by the term UPPER CHAMBERS proper16
upper chambers17 were meant, is not the
ruling18 obvious?19 The terms must
consequently mean20 compartments like
rooms or upper chambers, namely,21
compartments the partitions of which reach
the Ceiling. This is conclusive.
A Tanna taught: This22 applies only where
their erub is carried into a place other [than
the hall].23 but if their erub is remaining24
with them25 all26 agree that one contribution
to the erub suffices for all of them.27 Whose
view is followed in what was taught:28 If five
residents who collected their erub desired to
transfer it to another place.29 one erub
suffices for all of them?30 Whose view?
That of Beth Hillel.31
Others read: This32 applies only where the
erub remained33 with them,34 but if they
carried their erub to a place other [than
their hall]35 all36 agree that a separate
contribution to the erub is required for each
company.37 Whose view is followed in which
was taught: If five residents who collected
their contributions to an erub desired to
transfer it38 to another place39 one erub
suffices for all of them?40 Whose view? No
one's.41
MISHNAH. BROTHERS42 WHO WERE
EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT
SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSE43 MUST EACH
CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ERUB.44

HENCE, IF ANY ONE OF THEM FORGOT TO

CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB HE MUST45
RENOUNCE HIS RIGHT TO HIS SHARE IN
THE COURTYARD. WHEN DOES THIS
APPLY?46 WHEN THEY CARRY THEIR ERUB
INTO SOME OTHER PLACE47 BUT IF THEIR
ERUB IS DEPOSITED48 WITH THEM49 OR IF
THERE ARE NO OTHER TENANTS WITH
THEM IN THE COURTYARD THEY NEED
NOT PREPARE ANY ERUB.
GEMARA. Does this50 then imply that the
night's lodgingplace51 is the cause of the
obligation of erub?52 Rab Judah citing
flab replied: This was learnt only in respect
of such as receive a maintenance allowance.53
Our Rabbis taught: A man who has in his
neighbors courtyard a gate-house, an
exedra54 or a balcony imposes no restrictions
upon him.55 [One, however, who has in it] a
straw-magazine, a cattle-pen, a room for
wood or a storehouse does impose restrictions
upon him.
R. Judah ruled: Only a dwelling-house
imposes restrictions. It once happened, R.
Judah related, that Ben Nappaha56 had five
courtyards at Usha, and when the matter was
submitted to the Sages they ruled: Only a
dwelling-house imposes restrictions. A
dwelling-house! Is such a ruling imaginable?
Rather say: A dwelling-place. What is meant
by a dwelling-place? Rab explained:
(1) The reasoner or interpreter. R. Han. and
Alfasi read: ha-Sabbak, the net-weaver. Others
ha-Saddar, who arranges (Mishnahs) in order.
(2) Which subdivide a large hall into small
compartments.
(3) Lit., concerning what are they divided?
(4) Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
(5) R. Judah's statement that they do not
dispute... where partitions reach the ceiling.
(6) The statement of R. Judah that they only
differ where the partitions do not reach the
ceiling.
(7) But that where the partitions were ten
handbreadths high Beth Hillel agree that a
separate contribution. . . must be made.
(8) R. Judah's assertion (cf. supra n. 5) according
to which Beth Hillel require no separate

84

ERUVIN 53a-79a
contributions where the partitions, though ten
handbreadths high, do not reach the ceiling.
(9) I.e., that Beth Shammai require separate
contributions even where the partitions were so
frail and low. Does R. Judah, it is asked (cf. supra
n. 5), imply that Beth Shammai maintain this
view, even where the partitions are so low, in
agreement with this view of R. Nahman, or, do
they limit their view to partitions that are of some
considerable height though not as high as to reach
the ceiling?
(10) Even where they do not reach the ceiling.
(11) I.e., they require no separate contributions
from each company even where the partitions are
of some considerable height.
(12) That even in the case of partitions of stakes
Beth Shammai require each company to make a
separate contribution.
(13) Lit., the power of permissibility, since it
indicates conviction and certainty of opinion.
(14) The prohibition of a certain course may be an
easy way out of a legal difficulty and the result of
mere lack of knowledge or conviction as to
whether it could or could not be permitted.
(15) That where partitions reach the ceiling even
Beth Hillel agree that a separate contribution is
required.
(16) Or actual.
(17) I.e., such as have never formed parts of the
large hall.
(18) That for each room a separate contribution
must be made.
(19) What need then was there to state the
obvious?
(20) Lit., but, not?
(21) Lit., and what are they?
(22) That Beth Shammai require each company to
make a separate contribution to the erub (v. our
Mishnah).
(23) Sc. if it is deposited in one of the other houses
of the courtyard.
(24) Lit., was coming.
(25) l.e., if the other tenants brought their
contributions to the hall where the erub is
deposited.
(26) Even Beth Shammai.
(27) The point at issue between Beth Shammai and
Beth Hillel being not that of the nature of the
partitions but the question whether (a) one of a
group who joined in an erub may take that erub
with him to another group on behalf of all his
associates or whether (b) each individual of the
group must separately contribute his share. The
hall in question, both according to Beth Shammai
and Beth Hillel, combines the separate sections of
each company into one domain and no erub
among themselves alone is necessary irrespective
of whether the partitions were high or low, but
Beth Shammai maintain that one of them cannot
represent them all in the erub of the courtyard

and each must consequently contribute his

individual share, while Beth Hillel hold that one of
them may well represent all the group and,
therefore, only one contrition on behalf of all of
them is sufficient.
(28) Lit., like whom goes that which was taught.
(29) I.e., to another courtyard, desiring to join in
erub with the residents of that courtyard.
(30) I.e., one of the group may take their erub (or
the prescribed quantity of bread of his own on
behalf of all the group) to the place into which
they desired their erub to be transferred. Cf.
supra 49b.
(31) Cf. supra p. 504, n. 16.
(32) That Beth Hillel hold that one contribution
suffices for all the companies (v. our Mishnah).
(33) Lit., was coming.
(34) V. supra p. 504, n. 14.
(35) Sc. if it is deposited in one of the other houses
of the courtyard.
(36) Even Beth Hillel.
(37) The point at issue being whether the several
companies in the one hall, who are in the same
position as that of a number of tenants who joined
in one erub, must contribute individually to the
erub even where it is deposited in their hall, Beth
Shammai maintaining that they must while Beth
Hillel hold that they need not.
(38) Lit., when they carry their erub.
(39) V. supra n. 2.
(40) V. supra n. 3.
(41) Neither that of Beth Shammai nor that of
Beth Hillel, since both agree that separate
contributions are in this case required.
(42) The insertion in some ed., who were
partners is rejected by Rashi.
(43) Within the same courtyard as that of their
father's house.
(44) If they wish to join with the other tenants in
the erub of that courtyard.
(45) If the movement of objects in the courtyard is
to be unrestricted.
(46) Sc. that they must each contribute to the
erub.
(47) Sc. to a house of one of the other tenants. The
reason is given in the Gemara.
(48) Lit., was coming
(49) In their father's house.
(50) The ruling in our Mishnah that where the
brothers SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSES they
are under the obligation to make separate
contributions to the erub, from which it is evident
that if they slept in their father's house it is only
he who must make a contribution to the erub (if it
is deposited in some other house) while they are
exempt.
(51) And not the place where they have their
meals.
(52) Apparently it does; how then could Rab
maintain infra that one's obligation to a separate

85

ERUVIN 53a-79a
contribution to an erub is dependent on one's
dining-place?
(53) From their father. They did not actually have
their meals at his house.
(54) V. Glos.
(55) In respect of the movement of objects in his
courtyard on the Sabbath.
(56) Or a locksmith.

Eruvin 73a
One's dining-place.1 and Samuel explained:
One's night's lodging place. An objection was
raised: Shepherds, summer fruit attendants,2
station house-keepers and fruit watchmen
have3 the same status as the townspeople4 if
they are in the habit of taking their night's
rest in the town,5 but if they are in the habit
of spending the night in the fields6 they are
only entitled to walk a distance of two
thousand cubits in all directions?7 In that
case8 we are witnesses that they would have
been more pleased if bread had been brought
to them there.9
Said R. Joseph, l have never heard this
tradition.10 You yourself, Abaye reminded
him, have told it to us, and you said it in
connection with the following: BROTHERS
WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR
FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR
OWN
HOUSES
MUST
EACH
CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE ERUB,
concerning which we asked you: Does this
then imply that the night's lodging-place is
the cause of the obligation of erub? And you,
in reply to this question, told us: Rab Judah
citing Rab replied: This was learnt only in
respect of such as receive a maintenance
allowance.11
Our Rabbis taught: Where a man has five
wives who are in receipt of a maintenance
allowance from their husband12 or five slaves
who are in receipt of a maintenance
allowance from their Master,12 R. Judah b.
Bathyra permits [unrestricted movement]13
in the case of the wives14 but forbids it in the
case of the slaves,15 while R. Judah b. Baba
permits this in the case of slaves but forbids it
in the case of the wives. Said Rab, what is R.

Judah b. Baba's reason? The fact that it is

written in Scripture: But Daniel was in the
gate of the king.16 It is obvious that a son in
relation to his father is subject to the ruling
here enunciated.17 [The Status of] a wife in
relation to her husband and a slave in
relation to his master is a point at issue
between R. Judah b. Bathyra and R. Judah b.
Baba.18 What, however, [is the status of] a
student in relation to his master?19
Come and hear what Rab when at the school
of R. Hiyya20 stated: We need not prepare
an erub since we virtually dine21 at R.
Hiyya's table; and R. Hiyya, when he was at
the school of Rabbi, stated: We need not
prepare an erub since we virtually dine21 at
Rabbi's table.
Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If five residents22
collected their contributions to their erub23
and desired to transfer it24 to another place,25
does one erub contribution suffice for all of
them26 or is it necessary for each one to make
a separate contribution to the erub?27 He
replied: One erub contribution suffices for
all of them. But, surely, BROTHERS28 are
like
residents
who
collected
their
contributions29 and yet was it not stated:
MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO
THE ERUB?30
Here31 we are dealing with a case where other
tenants, for instance, lived with them,32 so
that [it may be said:] Since these33 impose
restrictions34 those35 also impose them.36 This
may also be supported by a process of
reasoning. For it was stated: WHEN DOES
THIS APPLY? WHEN THEY CARRY
THEIR ERUB INTO SOME OTHER
PLACE BUT IF THEIR ERUB IS
DEPOSITED WITH THEM OR IF THERE
ARE NO OTHER TENANTS WITH THEM
IN THE COURTYARD37 THEY NEED NOT
PREPARE ANY ERUB. This is conclusive.
R. Hiyya b. Abin enquired of R. Shesheth: in
the case of students who have their meals38 in
the country, but come to spend their nights at
the schoolhouse39 do we measure their

86

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Sabbath limit from the Schoolhouse40 or from
their country quarters?41 He replied: We
measure it from the schoolhouse.40 Behold,
[the first objected], the case of the man who
deposits his erub within two thousand
cubits42 and comes to take his night's rest at
his house whose Sabbath limit is measured
from his erub!43 In that case,44 [the other
replied,] we are witnesses, and in this case45
also we are witnesses. In that case44 we are
witnesses that if he could live there46 he47
would have preferred it,48 and in this case45
also we are witnesses that if their meals49 had
been brought to them at the schoolhouse they
would have much preferred it.50
Rami b. Hama enquired of R. Hisda: Are a
father and his son or a master and his
disciple regarded51 as many52 or as one
individual?53 Do they54 require an erub or
not? Can the use of their alley55 be permitted
by means of a side-post or cross-beam56 or
not?57 He replied: You have learnt it: A
father and his son or a master and his
disciple, if no other tenants live with them,58
are regarded as one individual,59 they require
no erub, and the use of their alley55 may be
rendered permissible by means of a side-post
or cross-beam.56
MISHNAH. IF FIVE COURTYARDS OPENED
INTO EACH OTHER AND INTO AN ALLEY,60
AND AN ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE
COURTYARDS BUT NO SHITTUF WAS MADE
FOR THE ALLEY, THE TENANTS ARE
PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF
THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT
OF THE ALLEY.61
(1) Lit., place of bread.
(2) Or fruit pickers, watchmen for drying figs.
(3) Though they were in the field when the
Sabbath began.
(4) In whose vicinity they carry on their
occupations. They, like the people of the town, are
allowed to move in any part of the town and along
distances of two thousand cubits in any of its
directions.
(5) Where they have their Sabbath meal.
(6) Though they dine in town.

(7) From their lodging-places. How then could

Rab maintain that the meaning of dwelling-place
is one's dining-place?
(8) Spoken of in the Baraitha just cited.
(9) Into the field where they are spending the
night. It is for this reason only that their diningplace in the town is disregarded.
(10) Of Rab. R. Joseph having lost his memory
after a serious illness was often making this
remark.
(11) Cf. supra p. 506, nn. 6ff.
(12) And each one lives in a separate house in his
courtyard.
(13) Even if no erub had been prepared.
(14) Since each one is deemed to be intimately
associated with her husband's house.
(15) Who are not so intimately connected with
their master.
(16) Dan. II, 49; implying that wherever Daniel
(the king's servant) was he was regarded as being
in the gate of the king i.e., at the king's house;
and the same applies to slaves in relation to their
master,
(17) Lit., as it has been said, of our Mishnah.
(18) As has just been stated.
(19) Where the former is in receipt of a
maintenance grant from the latter and lives with
him in the same courtyard but in a separate house.
(20) From whom he was receiving a maintenance
grant.
(21) Lit., rely. are supported.
(22) Of the same courtyard.
(23) For the courtyard in which they lived.
(24) Lit., when they carry their erub.
(25) I.e., to another courtyard with whose
residents they wish to join in erub.
(26) Sc. may one of them carry that erub (to
which they had all contributed) or the prescribed
quantity of food of his own (on behalf of all of
them) to the courtyard with the tenants of which
they desire to join?
(27) Abaye must never have heard of the Baraitha,
supra 72b which deals with this very question; or,
if he was acquainted with it, was desirous of
ascertaining whether it represented the halachah,
since, as was stated supra, it either agreed with
none or only with Beth Hillel.
(28) Who NEED NOT PREPARE ANY ERUB
where THERE ARE NO OTHER TENANTS
WITH THEM IN THE
COURTYARD.
(29) Who also need not prepare any other erub.
(30) If they desired to join in erub with other
tenants. How then could Rabbah maintain that
one erub contribution, which only places the
tenants in the same position as the brothers, is
sufficient?
(31) The ruling in our Mishnah concerning the
brothers.
(32) In the same courtyard.

87

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(33) The tenants in the same courtyard.
(34) Unless an erub is prepared.
(35) In the other courtyard with whom they now
desire to join.
(36) Unless each brother makes an independent
contribution to the new erub. In the case,
however, of two courtyards for each of which an
independent erub had been prepared by its
tenants, or in that of two courtyards in one of
which live a father and sons (who require no
erub) and in the other an erub had been
prepared by its tenants, so that the residents of
each courtyard independently are permitted
unrestricted movement within it, the principle of
since these impose... those also impose is
obviously inapplicable (since no one imposes
restrictions upon the others), and consequently
one erub taken by one of the tenants to the other
courtyard suffices for all the tenants of his own
courtyard.
(37) To impose restrictions upon them.
(38) Lit., who eat bread.
(39) Which is in town, the distance between which
and their dining quarters is not greater than two
thousand cubits.
(40) Because it is the place where their nights are
spent, in agreement with the view of Samuel
supra.
(41) Where they have their meals, in agreement
with Rab.
(42) From his town.
(43) And not from the place where his night is
spent. How then could it be maintained that the
students Sabbath limit is measured from their
schoolhouse because they spend their nights
there?
(44) That of the man who deposits his erub
outside the town and spends the night within it.
(45) Of the students under discussion.
(46) Where his erub is deposited.
(47) Since it is his intention to go on the Sabbath
in that direction of the town.
(48) In order that he might be nearer to his goal
when he starts on his walk on the Sabbath day.
(49) Lit., bread.
(50) Hence the ruling that their Sabbath limit is
measured from the schoolhouse.
(51) In the case of two courtyards one within the
other where the tenants of the inner one have a
right of way through the outer one.
(52) So that if they resided in the inner one they
impose restrictions on the use of the outer one
even though the latter had prepared an erub
among themselves (cf. infra 75a).
(53) Who (cf. prev. n.) imposes no restrictions on
the use of the outer courtyard.
(54) If they are the only tenants.
(55) Where one of them resided in one courtyard
and the other in another courtyard in the same
alley.

(56) As if two courtyards opened out into it. No

side-post or cross-beam is effective in an alley
unless houses and courtyards open into it.
(57) The courtyards of a father and his son or a
master and disciple being regarded as a single
courtyard (cf.prev. n. second clause).
(58) In the same courtyard.
(59) V. supra n. 10.
(60) I.e., each had two doors one of which led to
the other courtyards and the other opened direct
into the alley.
(61) Because an erub cannot serve the purposes of
both erub and shittuf.

Eruvin 73b
IF, HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR
THE ALLEY, THEY ARE PERMITTED THE
UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOT.1 IF AN ERUB
WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURTYARDS
AND SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR THE ALLEY,
THOUGH ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A
COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THE ERUB,2 THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS
PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF
BOTH.3 IF, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE
RESIDENTS OF THE ALLEY FORGOT4 TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE
PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF
THE COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT
OF THE ALLEY, SINCE AN ALLEY TO ITS
COURTYARDS5 IS AS A COURTYARD TO ITS
HOUSES.6
GEMARA. Whose view is this?7 Apparently
that of R. Meir who laid down that it is
necessary to have both erub and shittuf
Read, however, the middle clause: IF,
HOWEVER, SHITTUF WAS MADE FOR
THE ALLEY, THEY ARE PERMITTED
THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH,
which represents, does it not, the view of the
Rabbis who laid down that one of these8 is
sufficient?9
This is no difficulty. It10 means: IF,
HOWEVER, SHITTUF also WAS MADE.11
But read, then, the next clause: IF AN
ERUB WAS PREPARED FOR THE
COURTYARDS AND SHITTUF WAS
MADE FOR THE ALLEY, THOUGH ONE
OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD

88

ERUVIN 53a-79a
FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
ERUB, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS
PERMITTED THE UNRESTRICTED USE
OF BOTH. Now how is one to understand
this ruling? If [the tenant]12 did not renounce
his share,13 why14 should the others be
permitted?15 It is obvious then that he did
renounce it.
Now read the final clause: IF, HOWEVER,
ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE
ALLEY FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THE SHITTUF, THEY ARE PERMITTED
THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE
COURTYARDS BUT FORBIDDEN THAT
OF THE ALLEY; now if this is a case where
he16 renounced his share,17 why are they
forbidden the unrestricted use of the alley?
And should you reply that R. Meir is of the
opinion that the law of renunciation of one's
share is not applicable to an alley, surely it
can be retorted, was it not taught: Since...
he18 renounced his share17 in your favor... so
R. Meir?19 It is consequently obvious that
[the tenant] did not renounce his share. And
since the final clause deals with one who
made no renunciation in the earlier clause20
also must deal with one who made no
renunciation.21 Would then the first22 and the
last23 clauses represent the view of R. Meir24
and the middle one25 that of the Rabbis?26
All our Mishnah27 represents the view of R.
Meir; for the only reason why28 R. Meir
ruled that both erub and shittuf were
required is that the law of erub should not
be forgotten by the children, but in this
case,29 since most of the tenants did
contribute to the erub,30 it would not be
forgotten.31 Rab Judah stated: Rab did not
learn, OPENED INTO EACH OTHER;32
and so stated R. Kahana: Rab did not learn,
OPENED INTO EACH OTHER. Others say:
R. Kahana himself did not learn, OPENED
INTO EACH OTHER.
Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the reason of
him who does not learn, OPENED INTO
EACH OTHER? He is of the opinion that
a shittuf contribution that is not carried in

and out33 through the doors that opened into

the alley34 cannot be regarded as valid
shittuf.35 He raised an objection against him:
If a householder was in partnership with his
neighbors, with the one in wine and with the
other in wine, they need not prepare an
erub?36 There it is a case where he
carried it 37 in and out.38 He raised another
objection:39 How is shittuf in an alley
effected, etc.?40 There also It is a case
where it 41 was carried in and out.42
Rabbah43 b. Hanan 44 demurred: Now then,
would shittuf be equally invalid if one
resident transferred to another the possession
of some bread in his basket?46 And should
you reply that [the law] is so indeed, [it could
be retorted:] Did not Rab Judah, in fact, state
in the name of Rab: If numbers of a party
were dining 47 when the sanctity of the
Sabbath day overtook them, 48 they may rely
upon the bread on the table to serve the
purpose of erub or, as others say, that of
shittuf; and in connection with this Rabbah
observed that there is really no difference of
opinion between them,49 since the former
refers to a party dining47 in a house 50 and
the latter to one dining in a courtyard?51
45

The fact is that Rab's reason52 this:53 he is of

the opinion that unrestricted movement in an
alley cannot be rendered permissible by
means of a side-post or cross-beam unless
houses and courtyards opened into it.54 [To
turn to] the main text: Rab laid down:
Unrestricted movement in an alley cannot be
rendered permissible by means of a side-post
or cross-beam
(1) Lit., here and here, the courtyards as well as
the alley. This is discussed in the Gemara infra.
(2) But contributed to the shittuf
(3) V. supra n. 2.
(4) Cf. MS.M. and marg. n. Wanting from cur.
edd.
(5) Although both possess characteristics of a
public domain.
(6) Though the latter are distinctly private
domains while the former (cf. prev. n.) possess
characteristics of a public domain. As it is
forbidden to convey any objects from the houses
to the courtyard unless an erub had been

89

ERUVIN 53a-79a
prepared so it is forbidden to carry objects from
the courtyards into the alley unless shittuf had
been made.
(7) The first clause of our Mishnah.
(8) Either erub or shittuf.
(9) Is it likely, however, that two adjacent clauses
should represent two opposing views?
(10) The middle clause.
(11) In addition to erub, in agreement with R.
Meir.
(12) Who forgot to contribute to the erub of his
courtyard.
(13) In his courtyard, in favor of its other tenants.
(14) Since R. Meir does not recognize shittuf as a
substitute for erub.
(15) The unrestricted use of that courtyard.
(16) The occupant of a courtyard.
(17) In the alley.
(18) The Sadducee who occupied one of the
courtyards in an alley in which Israelites lived.
(19) Supra 68b.
(20) Dealing with the case of a tenant who forgot
to contribute to the erub of his courtyard.
(21) In agreement with the Rabbis who recognize
shittuf as valid for the purpose of erub also.
(22) According to which an erub for the
courtyards is of no value for the use of the alley
unless shittuf also was effected.
(23) Which forbids the unrestricted use of the
alley, if one of the residents failed to contribute to
the shittuf, though erub had been prepared.
(24) Who requires both erub and shittuf.
(25) Where the unrestricted use of both the
courtyards and the alley is permitted although one
of the tenants of a courtyard forgot to contribute
to the erub.
(26) Is it conceivable, however, that the view of the
Rabbis would be inserted anonymously between
the views of R. Meir?
(27) Lit., all of it.
(28) Lit., and what is the reason?
(29) V. p. 512, n. 14.
(30) Only one of them having failed to contribute
his share.
(31) Hence the validity of shittuf as a substitute for
erub even according to R. Meir.
(32) Sc. the erub spoken of in our Mishnah is not
one that was prepared for the purpose of
amalgamating a number of courtyards but for
that of enabling tenants to have the unrestricted
use of their own courtyard only.
(33) Into the alley from each of the courtyards and
out of it into the courtyard where it is to be
deposited.
(34) But through the other courtyards.
(35) Because the direct connection between
courtyards and alley must be clearly shown. As in
the case of courtyards that open into each other as
well as into the alley it may happen that the shittuf
contributions should be carried from a courtyard

into the alley indirectly through the other

courtyards, shittuf was entirely forbidden (cf.
Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.). Since our Mishnah allows
shittuf it must refer to courtyards that did not
open into each other. Hence Rab's omission.
(36) Supra 71a. The wine in joint ownership is
obviously kept in one of the courtyards and may
never have passed the door of any other
courtyard. How then could it be maintained that
for shittuf to be valid the contributions must pass
in and out through the doors that opened into the
alley?
(37) The cask containing the joint stock of wine.
(38) It was duly carried from each courtyard
direct into the alley and finally taken into the
courtyard in which it was deposited. This is a
forced explanation contrary to the accepted law
(cf. Rashi) and is later superseded by a more
satisfactory explanation.
(39) This is deleted by Rashal and appears in
parenthesis in cur. edd.
(40) Infra 79b where it is laid down that one of the
residents may assign to each of his neighbors a
share in his wine, and the shittuf is as valid as if
each one had actually contributed a share. Now,
though this wine has never passed the door of any
of the other courtyards, the shittuf is valid. How
then could it be maintained that contributions to
shittuf must pass in and out, etc.?
(41) V. p. 513, n. 10.
(42) V. p. 513, n. 11
(43) MS.M., Raba.
(44) MS.M., R. Hanan; Bah, R. Hanan.
(45) Lit., but from now, since it is maintained
that shittuf contributions must be carried in and
out.
(46) For the purpose of shittuf.
(47) Lit., reclining.
(48) Sc. the Sabbath began while they were still at
table and unable, therefore, to collect the
necessary contributions for erub or shittuf.
(49) Those who react erub and those who read
shittuf.
(50) An erub is deposited in a house (cf. infra
85b).
(51) Where a shittuf, but no erub may be
deposited (infra I.e.). This shows that there is no
necessity for the
contributions to shittuf to pass in and out through
the doors, etc. How then could it be maintained
that shittuf must pass in and our through the
doors of the courtyards that opened directly into
the alley?
(52) For omitting the phrase OPENED INTO
EACH OTHER.
(53) Not the one previously suggested according to
which shittuf must pass in and out, etc.
(54) Sc. no less than two courtyards must open
into the alley and no less than two houses must
open into each courtyard. As a number of

90

ERUVIN 53a-79a
courtyards that opened into each other are
regarded as one courtyard, the unrestricted use of
the alley spoken of in our Mishnah could not have
been effected if the courtyards that opened into
each other.

Eruvin 74a
unless houses and courtyards opened into it;1
but Samuel ruled: Even one house2 and one
courtyard3 suffices; while R. Johanan
maintained: Even a ruin4 is sufficient.
Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did R. Johanan
maintain his view even in the case of a path
between vineyards?5
R. Johanan, the other replied, only spoke of a
ruin since it may be used as a dwelling, but
not of a path between vineyards which
cannot be used as a dwelling.
Said R. Huna b. Hinena: R. Johanan6 here
follows a principle of his. For we learned: R.
Simeon
ruled:
Roofs,
karpafs
and
courtyards7 are equally regarded as one
domain in respect of carrying from one into
the other objects that were kept within them
when the Sabbath began, but not in respect
of objects that were in the house when the
Sabbath began;8 and Rab stated: The
halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon,9
provided no erub10 had been prepared,11 but
where an erub10 had been prepared12 a
preventive measure had been enacted against
the possibility of carrying objects from the
houses of one courtyard into some other
courtyard; but Samuel stated: Whether and
erub13 had, or had not been prepared;14 and
so also said R. Johanan: The halachah is in
agreement with R. Simeon irrespective of
whether all erub bad, or had not been
prepared. Thus it is evident that15 no
preventive measure had been instituted
against the possibility of carrying objects
from the houses of one courtyard into some
other courtyard, and so also here16 no
preventive measure had been instituted
against the possibility of carrying objects
from the courtyard17 into the ruin.18

R. Berona was sitting at his studies and

reporting this ruling19 when R. Eleazar, a
student of the college, asked him: Did
Samuel say this?
Yes, the other replied. Will you, the first
asked, show me his lodgings? When the
other showed it to him he approached
Samuel and asked him, Did the Master say
this?
Yes, the other replied. But, he objected,
did not the Master state, in the laws of erub
we can only be guided by the wording of our
Mishnah , viz., that an alley to its
courtyards20 is as a courtyard to its
houses?20 Whereupon the other remained
silent. Did he,21 or did he not accept it front
him?22
Come and hear of the case of a certain alley
in which Eibuth b. Ihi lived and, when he
furnished it with a side-post, Samuel allowed
him its unrestricted use.
(1) Cf. prev. n.
(2) Without a courtyard (cf., however, Tosaf. a.l.
and Rashi supra 12b).
(3) With a house in it.
(4) On one side of the alley on the other side of
which was a courtyard with one house in it.
(5) That terminated on one side of the alley which
had on the other side of it (cf. prev. in.) a
courtyard with a house.
(6) In allowing the use of an alley to become
unrestricted by means of a side-post or crossbeam if there was a ruin in that alley instead of a
second courtyard with a house.
(7) Which cannot be regarded as dwellings and,
consequently, require no erub.
(8) Such objects may not be moved from the
houses to the courtyard or vice versa, or from one
courtyard into another, unless an erub had been
duly prepared.
(9) That it is permitted to carry objects from one
courtyard into another even where the courtyards
did not join in erub.
(10) For each courtyard.
(11) In such a case, since its tenants are forbidden
to carry any objects from their houses into their
courtyard, no objects that were in the houses
which the Sabbath commenced could be found in
the courtyard. Hence there is no need to provide
against the possibility that the tenants might

91

ERUVIN 53a-79a
forgetfully carry any such objects into some other
courtyard.
(12) So that the tenants of each courtyard were
thereby allowed freely to carry objects into their
courtyards from their houses.
(13) For each courtyard.
(14) The halachah is in either case in agreement
with R. Simeon.
(15) In the opinion of R. Johanan.
(16) Where the alley contained a ruin.
(17) Through the alley.
(18) Though, belonging to some owner, the ruin
constitutes a domain of its own into which no
objects from the alley may be carried. (A ruin,
since excluded from the category of dwellingplaces, does not affect the use of an alley by the
tenants of its courtyards and does not join in its
shittuf).
(19) Of Samuel, supra, even one house and one
courtyard suffices.
(20) Emphasis on the plural form of the noun.
How then could Samuel rule, even one...
suffices?
(21) Samuel.
(22) Sc. did Samuel eventually adopt Rab's view?

Eruvin 74b
R. Anan subsequently1 came and threw it2
down3 when he4 exclaimed: I have been living
undisturbed5 in this alley6 on the authority7 of
Samuel, why should R. Anan b. Rab now
come and throw its side-post down!8 May it
not then be deduced from this that he9 did
not accept it from him?10
As a matter of fact it may still be maintained
that he9 did accept it from him,11 but12 in this
case13 a Synagogue superintendent who was
having his meals14 in his own home15 came16
to spend his nights at the Synagogue.17
Eibuth b. Ihi [however] thought that one's
dining place is the cause [of shittuf],18 while
Samuel [in reality] was merely acting on his
own principle he having laid down that one's
night's lodging19 place is the cause.20
Rab Judah citing Rab ruled: For an alley
whose one side21 occupied by all idolater and
its other side by an Israelite no erub may be
prepared22 through windows23 render the
movement of objects24 permissible by way of
the door25 into the alley. Said Abaye to R.

Joseph: Did Rab give the same ruling even in

respect of a courtyard?26
Yes,27 the other replied, for if he had not
given it28 I might29 have presumed that Rab's
reason for his ruling30 was his opinion that
the use of an alley cannot be rendered
permissible by means of a side-post or crossbeam unless houses and courtyards opened
into it;31 and [as to the objection:] What need
was there32 for two [rulings33 it could be
replied that both were] necessary: For if all
our information had to be derived from the
former ruling34
(1) After Samuel's death.
(2) The side-post.
(3) Because the alley, beside the Synagogue (v.
infra) contained only one courtyard and one
house.
(4) Eibuth b. Ihi.
(5) Lit., and coming.
(6) Sc. was permitted its unrestricted use on
account of the side-post.
(7) Lit., from the name. MS.M., since the time.
(8) Lit., should throw it down from; MS.M.
from it.
(9) Samuel.
(10) Apparently it may; for if he had accepted it
he would not leave permitted the unrestricted use
of the alley (cf. supra p. 516, n. 13).
(11) Samuel having eventually come round to the
view of Rab.
(12) As to the objection why Samuel allowed the
unrestricted use of the alley.
(13) Of the alley of Eibuth b. Ihi.
(14) Lit., eating bread.
(15) Which was outside the alley in question.
(16) During Samuel's lifetime.
(17) Whose door opened into that alley. He was,
therefore, regarded by Samuel as a resident. After
Samuel's death, however, the superintendent
discontinued that practice and the Synagogue was
entirely unoccupied at night. Hence R. Anan's
action.
(18) As the Synagogue superintendent only spent
the night in the alley but dined elsewhere he could
not, in the opinion of Eibuth b. Ihi, be regarded as
one of its occupants. He, therefore, gained the
impression that Samuel acknowledged the
validity of his side-post on the ground that one
house and one courtyard suffice to constitute an
alley. Hence his remonstrance with R. Anan.
(19) Not dining.
(20) Of the obligation of shittuf. The Synagogue,
since its superintendent lodged in it at night,
could, therefore, be regarded as an inhabited

92

ERUVIN 53a-79a
courtyard, so that together with the courtyard of
Eibuth b. Ihi the alley actually had two courtyards
and its use could be made to be unrestricted by
means of a side-post even according to Rab.
(21) Sc. the courtyard and house on that side.
(22) By the Israelite and his neighbors whose
house doors open into a public domain.
(23) Or any other forms of opening that connected
his and their houses.
(24) From the Israelites houses into the alley.
(25) Of the Israelite who lived in the alley into
whose house the objects could be brought by way
of the windows.
(26) The house on one side of which was occupied
by an idolater and the one on the other by an
Israelite whose houses was connected by some
form of opening with the houses of other
Israelites.
(27) I.e., Rab forbade the preparation of erub in
the case of the courtyard as in that of the alley.
(28) In the case of a courtyard.
(29) Lit., what would I.
(30) In the case of the alley.
(31) Supra 73b. While in the case under discussion
(an idolater's houses not being regarded as a valid
dwelling) there was only one valid courtyard in
the alley.
(32) Since both are based on the same principle.
(33) The one here and the one supra 73b (cf. n. 9).
(34) Lit., from that the ruling supra 73 b.

Eruvin 75a
I might have presumed that1 an idolater's
dwelling is regarded as a valid dwelling;2
hence we were informed3 that an idolater's
dwelling is no valid dwelling. And if all our
knowledge had to be derived front the latter
ruling.4 one would not have known the
number of houses required;5 hence we were
informed6 that there must be no less than two
houses. Now, however, that Rab also stated
that his ruling7 applied even to a courtyard8
[it follows that] Rab's reason is his opinion
that one is forbidden to live alone with9 an
idolater.10 If so,11 observed R. Joseph, I can
well understand12 why I heard R. Tabla13
mentioning idolater twice14 though at the
time I did not understand what he meant.
MISHNAH. IF TWO COURTYARDS WERE
ONE WITHIN THE OTHER15 AND THE
TENANTS OF THE INNER ONE PREPARED
AN ERUB16 WHILE THOSE OF THE OTHER
ONE DID NOT PREPARE ONE, THE

UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER ONE IS

PERMITTED17 BUT THAT OF THE OUTER
ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE TENANTS OF
THE OUTER ONE PREPARED AN ERUB BUT
NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE
UNRESTRICTED
USE
OF
BOTH
COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.18 IF THE
TENANTS
OF
EACH
COURTYARD
PREPARED AN ERUB FOR THEMSELVES,
THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS
PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS.19 R.
AKIBA FORBIDS THE UNRESTRICTED USE
OF THE OUTER ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT
OF WAY20 IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS.21 THE
SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT THE
RIGHT
OF
WAY22
IMPOSES
NO
RESTRICTIONS UPON IT.23 IF ONE OF THE
TENANTS OF THE OUTER COURTYARD
FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB.24
THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER
COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF
THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF A
TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD
FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB,
THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF BOTH
COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.25 IF THEY26
DEPOSITED THEIR ERUB IN THE SAME
PLACE27 AND ONE TENANT, WHETHER OF
THE INNER COURTYARD OR OF THE
OUTER
COURTYARD,
FORGOT
TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB, THE USE OF
BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.23 IF
THE COURTYARDS. HOWEVER, BELONGED
TO SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS THESE NEED
NOT PREPARE ANY ERUB.28
GEMARA. When R. Dimi came29 he stated in
the name of R. Jannai: This30 is the opinion
of R. Akiba who ruled: Even a foot31 that is
permitted32 in its own place33 imposes
restrictions in a place to which it does not
belong, but the Sages maintain: As a
permitted
foot32
does
not
impose
restrictions34 so does not34 a forbidden foot
either.35
We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF THE
OUTER ONE PREPARED AN ERUB BUT
NOT THOSE OF THE INNER ONE, THE
UNRESTRICTED
USE
OF
BOTH

93

ERUVIN 53a-79a
COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.36 Now
whose ruling is this? If it be suggested: That
of R. Akiba, the difficulty would arise: What
was the point in speaking of a forbidden foot
seeing that37 the same restrictions would also
apply to a permitted one? Must it not then be
a ruling of the Rabbis?38 It39 may in fact
be the ruling of R. Akiba,40 but41 the
arrangement, it may be explained, is in the
form of a climax.42
We learned: IF THE TENANTS OF EACH
COURTYARD PREPARED AN ERUB
FOR
THEMSELVES,
THE
UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH IS
PERMITTED TO ITS OWN TENANTS. The
reason then43 is because it44 PREPARED AN
ERUB,45 but if it had not prepared one,46 the
unrestricted use of both courtyards would
have been forbidden.47 This Tanna then holds
that a permitted foot48 imposes no
restrictions49 and that only a forbidden foot
imposes restrictions.49 Now who is it? if it be
suggested that it is R. Akiba, the objection
could be raised, did he not lay down that even
a permitted foot imposes restrictions?50 Must
it not then be the Rabbis?51 Furthermore:
Since the clause following is the ruling of R.
Akiba52 is it not obvious that the earlier
clause53 does not represent the view of R.
Akiba?54
All the Mishnah represents the views of R.
Akiba but55 a clause is wanting56 the correct
reading being the following:57 IF THE
TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD
PREPARED
AN
ERUB
FOR
THEMSELVES. THE UNRESTRICTED
USE OF EACH IS PERMITTED TO ITS
OWN TENANTS. This, however, applies
only where it58 made a barrier,59 but if it
made no such barrier the unrestricted use of
the outer courtyard is forbidden; so R.
Akiba, for R. AKIBA FORBIDS THE
UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE OUTER
ONE BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY
IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS. THE SAGES,
HOWEVER,60 MAINTAIN THAT THE
RIGHT
OF
WAY
IMPOSES
NO
RESTRICTIONS.

R. Bebai b. Abaye raised an objection: IF

THE
COURTYARDS,
HOWEVER,
BELONGED
TO
SEPARATE
INDIVIDUALS
THESE
NEED
NOT
PREPARE ANY ERUB; from which it
follows that if they belonged to several
persons an erub must be prepared. Is it not
thus obvious that a foot permitted in its own
place imposes no restrictions and that a foot
forbidden imposes restrictions?61
Rabina, furthermore, raised the following
objections: IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF
THE OUTER COURTYARD FORGOT TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERUB THE
UNRESTRICTED USE OF THE INNER
COURTYARD IS PERMITTED BUT THAT
OF THE OUTER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF
A TENANT OF THE INNER COURTYARD
FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
ERUB, THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF
BOTH COURTYARDS IS FORBIDDEN.
The reason62 accordingly is that a tenant63
forgot, but if he had not forgotten, the use of
both
courtyards
would
have
been
unrestricted. Is it not thus obvious that a foot
permitted imposes no restrictions and one
forbidden does?64
The fact is, Rabin when he came65 stated in
the name of R. Jannai that three different
views have been expressed on this question:
The first Tanna holds that a permitted foot
imposes no restrictions and a forbidden one
does; R. Akiba holds that even a permitted
foot imposes restrictions; while the latter
Rabbis66 hold that as a permitted foot does
not impose restrictions so does not one that is
forbidden. IF THEY DEPOSITED THEIR
ERUB IN THE SAME PLACE AND ONE
TENANT, WHETHER OF THE INNER
COURTYARD... FORGOT, etc. What is
meant by THE SAME PLACE?67
Rab Judah citing Rab explained: The other
courtyard.68 But why is it described as THE
SAME69 PLACE? Because it is a place
designated70 for the use of the tenants of both
courtyards.71

94

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(1) Since the house of an idolater was not at all
mentioned.
(2) V. supra 62a.
(3) In the ruling here.
(4) Lit., from here, the ruling supra 74b.
(5) Lit., I would have said: I do not know how
many houses constitute a courtyard. The number
of courtyards required to constitute an alley might
have been inferred from the statement that no
erub may be prepared where one of the two
courtyards in the alley was occupied by an
idolater, from which it follows that if it was
occupied by an Israelite, so that the alley had two
valid courtyards, the alley also is valid.
(6) In Rab's first ruling (supra 73a) where
houses (in the plural) were mentioned.
(7) Concerning the alley.
(8) Thereby showing that all possible restrictions
have been imposed upon an Israelite who, either
in the same alley or in the same courtyard, lives
alone with an idolater.
(9) Lit., it is forbidden to act (carry on as) an
individual in the place of.
(10) From whom one might learn undesirable
habits and beliefs.
(11) That (a) Rab's reason is the one just given, or
(b) that Rab gave two rulings one concerning an
alley and the other concerning a courtyard.
(12) Lit., that is it.
(13) When he was discoursing on Rab's rulings.
(14) He (cf. supra n. 4) must have been giving
Rab's ruling as well as his reason: (a) For an alley
whose one side is occupied by an idolater... no
erub may be prepared... because one is forbidden
to live alone with an idolater; or (b) was referring
first to an alley and then to a courtyard.
(15) The inner one opening into the outer which
opened into public domain and through which the
tenants of the inner one had right of way.
(16) For themselves alone, to enable them to have
the unrestricted use of their own courtyard.
(17) To its tenants.
(18) The reason is discussed infra.
(19) Lit., for itself.
(20) Lit., the treading of the foot, of each of the
tenants of the inner courtyard through the outer
one in the erub of which he had not joined.
(21) Despite the fact that each of the inner tenants
is permitted the unrestricted use of his own
courtyard.
(22) V. p. 519, n. 13.
(23) The reason is discussed infra.
(24) Of his courtyard.
(25) As the tenants of the inner courtyard are
forbidden the unrestricted use of their own
courtyard they impose restrictions on the use of
the outer one on account of their right of way.
(26) The tenants of the two courtyards who joined
in one erub.

(27) Sc. (as will be explained infra) in the outer

courtyard.
(28) Since the single owner of the inner courtyard
is permitted its unrestricted use he, in agreement
with the view of the Rabbis, cannot impose
restrictions in the use of the outer one though he
has a right of way through it.
(29) From Palestine to Babylon.
(30) The first clauses of our Mishnah.
(31) Synecdoche for person or persons.
(32) Sc. (cf. prev. n.) who is (or are) permitted the
unrestricted use.
(33) The courtyard in which the person (or
persons) lives.
(34) In a courtyard in which that tenant (or
tenants) does not live, though he has a right of way
through it.
(35) Though it is (a) forbidden in its own
courtyard and (b) has a right of way through the
other courtyard.
(36) From which it follows that if the tenants of
the inner one also prepared an erub the
unrestricted use of both courtyards is permitted;
obviously because a foot that is permitted in its
own place imposes no restrictions in a place to
which it does not belong.
(37) According to R. Akiba's specific ruling in our
Mishnah.
(38) An objection against R. Dimi.
(39) The first clauses of our Mishnah.
(40) Who maintains that a permitted foot also
imposes restrictions, and the inference supra n. 1
cannot consequently be drawn.
(41) In answer to the objection; If no inference is
to be drawn from it, what need was there to state a
ruling which may be deduced from R. Akiba's
specifically expressed ruling that followed it.
(42) Lit., and not this but also that was taught,
i.e., R. Akiba first laid down the ruling under
discussion (forbidden foot) and then he added in
effect: Not only does a forbidden foot (IF THE
TENANTS OF THE OUTER ONE PREPARED
AN ERUB BUT NOT THOSE OF THE INNER
ONE) impose restrictions on the use of the outer
courtyard but even a permitted foot (IF THE
TENANTS
OF
EACH
COURTYARD
PREPARED AN ERUB) also imposes the same
restrictions.
(43) Why THE UNRESTRICTED USE OF EACH
IS PERMITTED.
(44) The inner courtyard.
(45) In consequences of which its tenants have the
status of a permitted foot.
(46) So that its tenants would have had the status
of a forbidden foot.
(47) Apparently because a forbidden foot
imposes restrictions in the place through which it
has right of way.
(48) In its own place.
(49) In a place through which it has right of way.

95

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(50) Of course he did, as has been pointed out
supra.
(51) Apparently it must.
(52) His name being expressly mentioned (v. our
Mishnah).
(53) Which R. Akiba in fact opposes.
(54) Of course it does not. How then could R. Dimi
maintain his view?
(55) As to the difficulties raised.
(56) From our Mishnah.
(57) Lit., and thus he learned.
(58) The inner courtyard.
(59) Which shut it off from the outer courtyard
and thus deprived itself of its right of way through
the outer courtyard.
(60) Differing from R. Akiba both in the case
where THE TENANTS OF EACH COURTYARD
PREPARED AN ERUB FOR THEMSELVES as
well as where THE TENANTS OF THE OTHER
ONE PREPARED AN ERUB BUT NOT THOSE
OF THE INNER ONE.
(61) An objection against R. Dimi.
(62) Why the unrestricted use of both courtyards
is forbidden.
(63) Of the inner courtyard.
(64) Of course it is. Now this cannot be a ruling of
R. Akiba since he explicitly restricts the use of the
outer courtyard even where both courtyards had
prepared erubs. It must consequently be that of
the Rabbis who accordingly impose restrictions
where A TENANT OF THE INNER
COURTYARD FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THE ERUB. How than could R. Dimi maintain
that according to the Rabbis even a forbidden foot
imposes no restrictions?
(65) From Palestine to Babylon.
(66) To whom R. Dimi referred.
(67) The following mnemonic is here entered in
brackets: The external itself in a lonely house,
Rabina who does not forget within. It embodies
striking words or ideas contained in the previous
discussion on our Mishnah occasioned by R.
Dimi's tradition supra.
(68) The use of the inner one is in such a case
forbidden (even where only one of the outer
tenants failed to join in the erub) since its tenants,
on account of their erub that lay in the outer
courtyard, cannot shut up their door and separate
themselves from the latter; and the use of the
outer one is equally forbidden (even where only an
inner tenant failed to join in erub) on account of
the forbidden foot of the inner one that imposes
restrictions on it. Where, however, the erub was
deposited in the inner courtyard it is only the
forgetfulness of one of its own tenants that causes
the restriction of the outer one on account of its
forbidden foot. The forgetfulness of all outer
tenant, however, imposes no restrictions on the
tenants of the inner one since they can well shut
up their door and, by separating themselves from

the outer one, have the free use of their own

courtyard.
(69) .
(70) rt. which is analogous to that of .
(71) The inner one having a right of way through
it.

Eruvin 75b
So1 it was also taught: If they deposited their
erub in the outer courtyard and one tenant,
whether of the outer, or of the inner
courtyard, forgot to contribute to the erub,
the unrestricted use of both courtyards is
forbidden. If they deposited their erub in the
inner one and a tenant of the inner one forgot
to contribute to the erub, the unrestricted
use of both courtyards is forbidden. If a
tenant of the outer courtyard forgot to
contribute to the erub the unrestricted use of
both courtyards is forbidden. This is the view
of R. Akiba.
The Sages, however, ruled: In this case2 the
unrestricted use of the inner one is
permitted3 through that of the outer one is
forbidden.1
Said Rabbah b. Hanan to Abaye: Why did
the Rabbis make a distinction4 when they laid
down that5 the unrestricted use of the inner
courtyard is permitted? Obviously because
its tenants can shut its door and so use it.
Why then should they not shut its door,
according to R. Akiba also, and so use it?
The other replied: The erub6 causes them to
be associated. Does not the erub cause them
to be so associated according to the Rabbis
also? The tenants7 call say: We have
associated with you in order to improve our
position but not to make it worse. Why could
they not, according to R. Akiba, also say:
We have associated with you in order to
improve our position but not to make it
worse? Because the others8 can reply:
We will renounce our rights of entry9 in
your favour.10 And the Rabbis?11
The tenants of one courtyard cannot
renounce their rights in favor of those of

96

ERUVIN 53a-79a
another.12 Must it be assumed that Samuel
and R. Johanan13 differ on the same
principle14 as that on which the Rabbis and
R. Akiba differ, Samuel holding the same
view as the Rabbis and R. Johanan holding
that of R. Akiba?15
Samuel can answer you: I may maintain my
view even according to R. Akiba, for it is only
here,16 where two courtyards, one within the
other, impose17 restrictions upon each other,
that R. Akiba upheld his view,18 but not there
where19 they do not20 impose restrictions
upon each other.21
Johanan also can answer you: I may
maintain my view even according to the
Rabbis,22 for it is only here that the Rabbis
maintain their view, since the tenants of the
inner courtyard can say to those of the outer
one, Until you make renunciation in our
favor you are imposing restrictions upon
us23 but not there where19 one courtyard
does not impose restrictions upon the other.24
IF THE COURTYARDS, HOWEVER,
BELONGED,
TO
SEPARATE
INDIVIDUALS, etc. R. Joseph stated: Rabbi
learned: If they25 were three they are
forbidden.26
Said R. Bebai to them: Do not listen to
him.27 It was I who first reported it,28 and I
did so in the name of R. Adda b. Ahabah,29
giving the following as a reason: Since I
might describe them30 as many residents31 in
the outer courtyard.32 God of Abraham,
exclaimed R. Joseph. I must have mistaken33
Rabbin31 for Rabbi.34
Samuel, however, ruled: The unrestricted use
of both courtyards is always permitted except
where two persons occupied the inner
courtyard and one person the outer one.
R. Eleazar ruled: A gentile35 is regarded36 as
many Israelites.37 But wherein does an
Israelite,35 who imposes no restrictions,38
essentially differ in this respect?39 Obviously
in this: That he who knows40 is fully aware of

the circumstances,41 and he who does not

know40 presumes that an erub had been duly
prepared.42 Why then should it not be said in
the case of a gentile also: He who knows43 is
fully aware of the circumstances44 and he
who does not know43 presumes that the
gentile has duly let his right of way? The
average gentile, if ever he lets his right,45
makes a noise about it.46
Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If there were
ten houses one within the other,47 the
innermost one48 contributes the erub,49 and
this is sufficient.50
R. Johanan, however, ruled: Even the outer
one must contribute to it. The outer one!51
Is it not like a gate-house?52 The outer
house of the innermost one53 was meant. On
what principle do they54 differ?
One Master55 holds the view that the gatehouse of one individual56 is regarded as a
proper gate-house57 while the other Master58
holds the view that59 it is not regarded as a
proper gate-house.60
R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha who
had it front Rab ruled: If there were two
courtyards between which there were three
houses,61 one tenant62 may come through the
one outer house63 and deposit his erub in the
middle one, and another tenant64 may come
through the outer house63 and deposit his
erub in the middle one.
(1) In agreement with Rab Judah that by the
SAME PLACE the outer courtyard was meant.
(2) The last mentioned case where an outer tenant
forgot to join in the erub.
(3) Since, as explained supra, it can shut up its
door, etc.
(4) Between an erub deposited in the inner, and
one deposited in the outer courtyard.
(5) In the former case.
(6) In which both courtyards joined.
(7) Of the inner courtyard.
(8) The tenants of the outer courtyard.
(9) Into the inner courtyard to which we are
entitled by virtue of our joint erub.
(10) So that our association in the erub would
involve you in no disadvantage. R. Akiba's
prohibition of the

97

ERUVIN 53a-79a
unrestricted use of the inner courtyard is limited
to the period prior to such renunciation.
(11) If by renunciation the tenants of the inner
courtyard regain their full rights, how could they
object to their association with the other on the
ground mentioned?
(12) Lit., there is no renunciation of rights from
one courtyard to another. As those of the outer
courtyard cannot consequently renounce this right
in the inner one in favor of its tenants the latter
might well plead against the disadvantage
resulting from their join erub, We have
associated with you in order to improve, etc.
(13) Who offered (supra 66b, 68a) on the
permissibility of renunciation by the tenants of
one courtyard in favor of those of another, where
a door led from one courtyard into the other.
(14) As has just been explained.
(15) But if the principle is the same, why should it
be discussed twice?
(16) Lit., until here.
(17) If they joined in an erub.
(18) As restrictions are imposed renunciation also
was permitted.
(19) Not having joined in a common erub.
(20) Lit., do they.
(21) Cf. supra n. 7. mut. mut.
(22) Who in fact do allow renunciation where two
courtyards are involved.
(23) Since by accepting the advantage of the one
they must also accept the disadvantage of the
other they might well decline to accept either.
Hence the Rabbis prohibition of renunciation.
(24) As in that case renunciation is purely
advantageous, involving no disability whatever,
the Rabbis may well have allowed it.
(25) The occupiers of the two courtyards.
(26) The unrestricted use of the courtyards, unless
they prepared an erub. For if two persons
occupied the inner courtyard they impose
restrictions upon each other and, as a forbidden
foot and on account of their right of way, on the
occupiers of the other courtyard also; and if one
person only occupied the inner courtyard he also
imposes the same restrictions as a preventive
measure against the possible relaxation of the law
where two occupied it.
(27) Sc. R. Joseph's statement that the ruling he
cited had the authority of a Mishnah taught by
Rabbi was incorrect.
(28) The ruling cited by R. Joseph.
(29) Not in the name of Rabbi or R. Judah I.
(30) The three occupiers all of whom have a right
of way through the otter courtyard.
(31) Rabbim, a word which a listener might
mistake for Rabbi.
(32) Though the inner courtyard is occupied by
one person only the same restrictions apply, as a
preventive measure (cf. supra n. 1). The rendering

and interpretation here follow partly the

exposition of R. Han.
(33) Lit., exchanged.
(34) R. Joseph, as a result of a serious illness, lost
his memory; and faintly recollecting the word
rabbit (many) assumed it to represent the name
of Rabbi .
(35) Who occupied the inner courtyards
(36) According to Samuel's ruling (cf. Rashi).
(37) Sc. he imposes the same restrictions on the
occupiers of the outer courtyard unless his right of
way had been rented from him.
(38) On the occupiers of the outer courtyard.
(39) From a gentile.
(40) That the Israelite is the only occupant, and
that a permitted foot imposes no restrictions.
(41) Lit., knows why no restrictions are imposed.
Hence no preventive measure was called for.
(42) By the occupants of the inner courtyard if
their number was two or more.
(43) That the occupant of the inner courtyard was
a gentile.
(44) v. p. 526, n. 16.
(45) In connection with Sabbath.
(46) It is possible, therefore, for a person who was
unaware that the inner courtyard was occupied by
one gentile only to assume that it was occupied by
more than one, and that the reason why they
imposed no restrictions was not because they let
their right of way to the Israelite (for had they
done so they would have made a noise about it)
but because (a) right of way imposes no
restrictions or because (b) an erub prepared by
the Israelite tenants of the two courtyards is
effective even though the gentile tenant did not let
them his right of way. Hence the necessity for R.
Eleazar's preventive measure.
(47) Only the door of the outermost house opening
into a courtyard into which doors of the houses of
other tenants also opened.
(48) Since its tenant has the right of way through
all the other nine houses each of which is in
consequence regarded as his gate-house (cf.
supra 72b, infra 85b).
(49) For the other tenants (cf. supra n. 5) of the
courtyard.
(50) None of the other nine tenants need make any
contribution to the erub.
(51) This is at present presumed to refer to the
outermost house that opens directly into the
courtyard.
(52) For all the nine tenants whose only way to the
courtyard lies through it.
(53) Sc. the last house but one, or the ninth from
the courtyard, which is used as a passage by the
innermost tenant only. All the other houses,
however, since they are used as thoroughfares for
two or more tenants definitely assume the status of
gate-houses which do not contribute to the erub
of the courtyard.

98

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(54) Samuel and R. Johanan.
(55) Samuel.
(56) As is the ninth house which serves as a gatehouse for the single occupier of the tenth house
only.
(57) Hence his ruling that none of the nine houses
need contribute to the erub.
(58) R. Johanan.
(59) Since only one man uses it as his
thoroughfare.
(60) Its occupier must, therefore, contribute to the
erub as does the occupier of the house within it.
(61) The two outer ones opening into the two
courtyards respectively and the middle house
having a door leading into each of the two houses.
(62) Lit., this, a tenant of the one courtyard other
than those who respectively occupied the three
houses.
(63) That has a door into his courtyard.
(64) Of the other courtyard, who is not one of
those occupying one of the three houses.

Eruvin 76a
The one [outer house] thereby becomes1 a
gate-house to the one [courtyard]2 and the
other [outer house] becomes1 a gate-house to
the other [courtyard]2 while the middle
house, being the house in which the erub is
deposited, need not contribute any bread to
the erub.
Rehaba tested the Rabbis: If there were two
courtyards and between them two houses3
and a tenant4 of the one [courtyard] came
through the one [house] and deposited his
erub in the other5 while a tenant6 of the
other [courtyard] came through the latter
[house] and deposited his erub in the former,
do they7 thereby acquire the privileges of
erub8 or not? Do we regard each house in
relation to the one [courtyard]9 as a house
and in relation to the other [courtyard]10 as a
gate-house?11
Both,12 they replied, do not acquire the
privileges of erub. For, whatever you
assume, [this must be the result]. If you
regard either house as a gate-house, an erub
deposited in a gate-house, exedra or balcony
is not a valid erub;13 and if you regard
either as a proper house, the tenants would
be carrying objects into a house which was

not covered by their erub.14 But why should

this ruling be different from that of Raba,15
who laid down: If two persons said to a third
party, Go and prepare an erub on our
behalf and, after he had prepared an erub
for the one while it was yet day16 and for the
other at twilight,16 the erub of the man for
whom it was prepared while it was yet day
was eaten up at twilight while the erub of the
man for whom it was prepared at twilight
was eaten up after dusk, both17 acquire the
privileges18 of erub?19
What a comparison!20 There21 it is doubtful
whether twilight is day-time or night-time, a
point that cannot be definitely determined;22
but, in this case, if a house is to be regarded
as a proper house in relation to the former it
must be so regarded in relation to the latter
also, and if it is regarded in relation to the
latter as a gate-house it must also be so
regarded in relation to the former.23
CHAPTER VII
MISHNAH.
IF
BETWEEN
TWO
COURTYARDS24 THERE WAS A WINDOW OF
FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR, WITHIN
TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND,
THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO
ERUBS25 OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY
PREPARE ONE.26 IF [THE SIZE OF THE
WINDOW WAS] LESS THAN FOUR
HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR27 OR HIGHER
THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE
GROUND,28 TWO ERUBS MAY BE
PREPARED25 BUT NOT ONE.29
GEMARA. Must it be assumed that we have
here learnt30 an anonymous Mishnah in a
agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who
ruled31 that wherever a gap is less than four
handbreadths it is regarded as labud?32 It
may be said to agree even with the Rabbis;
for the Rabbis differed from R. Simeon b.
Gamaliel only in regard to the laws of labud.
As regards an opening, however, even they
may agree that only if its size is four
handbreadths by four is it regarded as a valid

99

ERUVIN 53a-79a
opening but otherwise it cannot be so
regarded.
LESS THAN FOUR, etc. Is not this obvious?
For, since it was said that the window must
be33 FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR,
WITHIN TEN HANDBREADTHS, would I
not naturally understand that if it was less
than four and higher than ten It is not valid
opening? It is this that we were
informed:34 The reason35 is because all of it
was higher than ten handbreadths from the
ground, but if a part of it was within ten
handbreadths from the ground, THE
TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ERUBS
OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY
PREPARE ONE.36
Thus we have learnt in a Mishnah what the
Rabbis taught elsewhere: If [almost] all the
window was higher than ten handbreadths
from the ground but a part of it was within
ten handbreadths from it, or if [almost] all of
it was within ten handbreadths and a part of
it was higher than ten handbreadths, the
tenants may prepare two erubs or, if they
prefer, they may prepare one. Now then,
where [almost] all the window was higher
than ten handbreadths from the ground but a
part of it was within ten handbreadths you
ruled that the tenants may prepare two
erubs or, if they prefer, they may prepare
one was it also necessary to mention the case
where [almost] all of it was within ten
handbreadths and a part of it was higher
than ten handbreadths?37 This is a case of
anticlimax: This,38 and there is no need to say
that.39
R. Johanan ruled: A round window33 must
have a circumference of twenty-four
handbreadths, two and a fraction of which40
must be within ten handbreadths from the
ground, so that, when it41 is squared,42 a
fraction remains within the ten handbreadths
from the ground.43 Consider: Any object that
has a circumference of three handbreadths is
approximately one handbreadth in diameter:
should not then twelve handbreadths44
suffice?45

(1) In relation to the middle one.

(2) Into which that house has a door. As a gatehouse is exempt from erub neither of the outer
houses need contribute to the erub of either
courtyard.
(3) Cf. supra n. 1 mut. mut.
(4) Cf. supra n. 2 mut. mut.
(5) That opened into the other courtyard.
(6) Cf. supra n. 4.
(7) The tenants of the respective courtyards who
have no desire hat their courtyards should be
joined by one erub.
(8) Each group of tenants in its own courtyard.
(9) Into which it had no door and from which it is
separated by the other house.
(10) Into which its door opens.
(11) And both erubs are consequently valid. If
both houses had been regarded as gate-houses
neither erub (cf. infra 85b) would have been
valid, and even if both houses had been regarded
as proper houses neither erub would have been
valid since in the case of each house the other that
was not covered by the erub intervened between
it and the courtyard for which the erub had been
prepared.
(12) The tenants of both courtyards.
(13) Infra 85b; consequently neither erub is valid.
(14) Since a house cannot be regarded as both a
gate-house and a proper house at the same time
both erubs must be deemed invalid.
(15) MS.M. and Asheri, Rabbah.
(16) Of the Sabbath eve.
(17) Since it is uncertain whether twilight is to be
regarded as day or as night.
(18) In the former case it is assumed that twilight
is night and, since the erub was in existence
before twilight when the Sabbath commenced, the
erub is valid. In the latter case it is assumed that
twilight is still day and, since the erub was
prepared before twilight and was still in existence
when the Sabbath commenced, the erub is valid.
Now why, it is asked, if twilight is here assumed to
be day for one individual and night for another
could not a house also be assumed to be a gatehouse for one and a proper house for another?
(19) Shab. 34a.
(20) Lit., thus now.
(21) The case dealt with by Raba.
(22) As erub is only a Rabbinical institution the
more lenient course may be followed in favor of
each individual.
(23) Were the same house at the same time to be
regarded as both a gate-house and a proper house
the whole law of
erub would become a farce.
(24) In the wall that divided one from the other.
(25) One for each courtyard, to enable the
respective tenants to have the unrestricted use of
their courtyard. The movement of objects from

100

ERUVIN 53a-79a
one courtyard into the other, however, remains
forbidden.
(26) Jointly. The tenants of one courtyard deposit
their erub in the other and, by thus joining
together, both groups of tenants are permitted the
unrestricted use of both courtyards.
(27) A size that cannot be regarded as a valid
opening.
(28) So that a portion of the dividing wall to a
height of ten handbreadths contained no valid
opening through which the tenants could gain
access from one courtyard into the other.
(29) Since the wall (cf. prev. n.) constitutes a solid
partition between the courtyards. It is
consequently forbidden to move objects between
the courtyards either over the wall or through any
small apertures or cracks in it.
(30) In the ruling that if A WINDOW WAS LESS
THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS square it is
deemed to be nonexistent (v. our Mishnah).
(31) Supra 9a.
(32) v. Glos. Is it likely, however, that an
anonymous Mishnah, which usually represents the
accepted halachah, would agree with an individual
opinion against that of the majority?
(33) If it is to be regarded as a valid opening that
enables the tenants of both courtyards to join in a
single erub.
(34) By the apparently superfluous ruling.
(35) Why the window is regarded as an invalid
opening.
(36) This could not have been inferred from the
first clause of our Mishnah which might have been
taken to imply that the entire window must be
within ten handbreadths from the ground; and
since HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS
has to be stated, it incidentally states also LESS
THAN FOUR, etc.
(37) Apparently not, since the latter may be
deduced from the former a minori ad majus.
(38) The first case where a window was only
partly within ten handbreadths from the ground.
(39) The second case where almost all of it was
within the ten handbreadths.
(40) Measured from the lowest point of the
circumference along the diameter joining this
point to the highest one opposite (cf. Tosaf.).
(41) The window whose diameter (being approx. a
third of its circumference) is equal to (24/3 =)
eight handbreadths approx.
(42) And thus reduced on each side of the square
by two handbreadths, leaving a square window of
the size of 8 (2 + 2) by 8 (2 + 2) = 4 X 4
handbreadths. He assumed that the area of a
square constructed within a circle is half the area
of the circle itself, v. infra.
(43) This fraction being the only part of the square
window within the prescribed distance from the
ground.
(44) A third of twelve being four.

(45) For the purpose of obtaining a square of four

handbreadths by four within the circumference.
Why then did R. Johanan require a minimum
circumference of twenty-four?

Eruvin 76b
This1 applies only to a circle, but where a
square2 is to be inscribed within it a greater
circumference is required.3 But observe: By
how much does the perimeter of a square
exceed that of a circle? By a quarter
approximately;
should
not
then
a
circumference of sixteen handbreadths4
suffice?5
This6 applies only to a circle that is inscribed
within7 the square, but where a square is to
be inscribed within a circle it is necessary [for
the circumference of the latter] to be much
bigger.8 What is the reason? In order [to
allow9 space for] the projections of the
corners.10 Consider, however, this: Every
cubit in [the side of] a square [corresponds
to], one and two fifths cubits in its diagonal;
[should not then11 a circumference] of sixteen
and four fifths handbreadths12 suffice?13
R. Johanan holds the same view as the judges
of Caesarea or, as others say, as that of the
Rabbis of Caesarea who maintain [that the
area of] a circle that is inscribed within a
square Is [less than the latter by] a quarter14
[while that of] the square that is inscribed
within that circle15 [is less than the outer
square by] a half.16
IF THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WAS
LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY
FOUR, etc. R. Nahman explained: This17 was
learnt only in respect of a window between
two courtyards but in the case of a window
between two houses, even though It was
higher than ten handbreadths from the
ground, the residents may, if they wish,
prepare one erub jointly. What is the
reason? A house is regarded as filled.18
Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman:
A window, irrespective of whether19 it was
between two courtyards, between two houses,

101

ERUVIN 53a-79a
between two upper rooms, between two
roofs,20 or between two rooms, must be of the
size of21 four handbreadths by four within
ten handbreadths from the ground? The
interpretation is [that the limitation22 applies]
to the courtyards.23 But was it not stated:
irrespective of whether?24 The
interpretation is that this refers to the
prescribed four handbreadths by four.
R. Abba25 enquired of R. Nahman: If an
aperture26 led from a room to an upper
room,27 is a permanent ladder28 necessary for
the purpose of allowing the movement of
objects29 or not? Do we apply the principle,
that a house is regarded as filled only when
the aperture30 is at the side but not when it is
in the middle31 or is it possible that there is
no difference? The other replied: It is not
necessary. He32 understood him33 to mean
that only a permanent ladder is not necessary
but that a temporary one is necessary. It was,
however, stated: R. Joseph34 b. Minyomi
citing R. Nahman laid down: Neither a
permanent, nor a temporary ladder is
necessary.
MISHNAH. IF A WAIL BETWEEN TWO
COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS
HIGH AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS THICK,
TWO ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED35 BUT NOT
ONE.36 IF THERE WAS FRUIT ON THE TOP
OF IT,37 THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE
MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THEM
PROVIDED38 THEY DO NOT CARRY THEM
DOWN. IF A BREACH TO THE EXTENT OF
TEN CUBITS WAS MADE IN THE WALL, THE
TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ERUBS35 OR,
IF THEY PREFER, ONLY ONE,39 BECAUSE
IT40 IS LIKE A DOORWAY. IF THE BREACH
WAS BIGGER, ONLY ONE ERUB AND NOT
TWO MAY BE PREPARED.41
GEMARA. What is the ruling where it42 was
not FOUR HANDBREADTHS wide? Rab
replied: The air of two domains43 prevails
upon it and44 no object on it may be moved
even as far as a hair's breadth.

(1) That a figure with a perimeter of twelve

handbreadths has a diameter of four
handbreadths approx.
(2) Of given dimension, as in this case one of four
handbreadths by four.
(3) As the window under discussion must be four
handbreadths square the diameter of the circle in
which such a square can be inscribed must have,
as laid down by R. Johanan, a minimum
circumference of twenty-four hand breadths.
(4) Since sixteen exceeds twelve by a quarter of the
former figure.
(5) For the window under discussion.
(6) That the perimeter of a square exceeds the
circumference of a circle by one quarter.
(7) Lit., that goes out from.
(8) Than three quarters of the given square. Hence
R. Johanan's requirement that the circumference
of the window must be no less than twenty-four
handbreadths.
(9) Within the circle.
(10) Of the square. A circular window with a
circumference that is less than twenty-four
handbreadths would not contain the area that is
required.
(11) Since the diameter of the circle forms the
diagonal of the inscribed square.
(12) Which has a diameter of (16 4/5)/3 = 84/(3 X
5) = 28/5 handbreadths approximately and in
which a square each side of which is equal to (5/7
of its diagonal or 28/5 X 5/7 =) four handbreadths,
may be inscribed.
(13) Why then did R. Johanan require a
circumference of twenty-four handbreadths?
(14) Of that square.
(15) That was inscribed in the other square.
(16) Cf. Rashi, Tosaf., R. Han. and Rashal one or
other of whom the interpretation here partly
follows. While the rule laid down in Caesarea
seems to bear on the area of the circle and the
squares, R. Johanan applied it also to the
circumference of the circle and thus required a
much bigger circumference than is actually
necessary for an inscribed square of four
handbreadths by four.
(17) That the window must not be higher than
TEN HANDBREADTHS from the ground.
(18) The window is consequently within the
prescribed ten handbreadths.
(19) Lit., one to me.
(20) According to the Rabbis who ruled that as the
residents are divided in their domains below so
are they divided on their roofs above and,
consequently, no movement of objects from one
person's roof to that of another is permitted unless
a proper erub is prepared.
(21) Lit., all of them.
(22) Within ten handbreadths.
(23) Not to the houses.

102

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(24) Which implies that houses are subject to the
same restrictions as the courtyards mentioned in
the same context.
(25) MS.M. Raba.
(26) In the roof of a lower room which is the floor
of the upper one.
(27) Jast., a small room opening (leading) from
the ground floor to the upper room, the two
rooms having been occupied by two residents
respectively.
(28) Leading from the lower to the upper room
through the aperture.
(29) Between the two rooms.
(30) As in the case of the window spoken of by R.
Nahman.
(31) Hence no erub is valid unless a ladder (cf.
supra 59b) joined the lower and the upper rooms.
(32) R. Abba.
(33) R. Nahman.
(34) Var. lec., Rab Judah in the name of R.
Joseph (Asheri).
(35) Separate ones for each courtyard.
(36) Sc. the two courtyards are not allowed to
prepare a joint erub on account of the wall that
intervened between them. The prescribed
thickness of four handbreadths, which has no
bearing on this restriction since it applies to all
walls whatever their thickness, was mentioned on
account of the ruling that follows which is
applicable only where the thickness of the wall
was no less than four handbreadths. A lesser
thickness does not constitute a separate domain.
(37) The wall of the prescribed thickness (cf. prev.
n.).
(38) Since it is forbidden to carry from one
domain into another (cf. prev. two notes).
(39) Jointly.
(40) A gap that is not bigger than ten cubits.
(41) A gap so great converts the two courtyards
into one; and the tenants, like those of the same
courtyard, may not break up into two parties for
erub. If they do they impose restrictions of
movement upon each other.
(42) The WALL.
(43) That of the two courtyards between which it
is situated.
(44) Since it constitutes no independent domain
and every fraction of its space is dominated (cf.
prev. n.) by two domains.

Eruvin 77a
R. Johanan, however, ruled: The tenants on
either side may carry up their food and eat it
there.1 We learned, THE TENANTS ON
EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT
THERE. Does not this imply that they may
only CLIMB UP but not carry up?2 It is

this that was meant: If the top consists of an

area of four handbreadths by four they MAY
CLIMB UP but may not carry up, and if it
consists of less than four by four they may
also carry up.
R. Johanan3 follows a principle of his.4 For
when R. Dimi came5 he stated in the name of
R. Johanan: On a place6 whose area is less
than four handbreadths by four7 it is
permissible both for the people of the public
domain and for those of the private domain
to rearrange their burdens,8 provided they do
not exchange them.9 Does not Rab,10
however, uphold the tradition of R. Dimi?11
If it were a case of Pentateuchal domains12
the law would have been so indeed,13 but here
we are dealing with Rabbinical domains,14
and the Sages15 have applied to their
enactments16 higher restrictions than to those
of the Torah.17
Rabbah son of R. Huna18 citing19 R. Nahman
ruled: A wall between two courtyards, one of
whose sides was ten handbreadths high20 and
the other one of which was on a level with the
ground,21 is assigned to that courtyard with
the floor of which it is level,22 because the use
of it is convenient to the latter but
inconvenient to the former, and any place the
use of which is convenient to one and
inconvenient to another, is to be assigned to
the one to whom its use is convenient.
R. Shezbi laid down in the name of R.
Nahman: A trench between two courtyards,
whose one side was ten handbreadths deep23
and whose other side was on a level with24 the
floor,25 is assigned to that courtyard with
whose floor it is on a level,26 because its use is
convenient to the latter but inconvenient to
the former, etc.27 And [the enunciation of]
both cases28 was required. For if we had been
informed only of the law of the wall29 it might
have been assumed to apply to it alone,
because people make use of a raised
structure, but not to a trench, since people do
not make use of a depression in the ground.30
And if we had been informed of the law of the
trench only31 it might have been assumed to

103

ERUVIN 53a-79a
apply to it alone, because its use involves no
anxiety32 but not to a wall the use of which
involves anxiety.33
Hence the enunciation of both28 was
necessary. If the height of the wall was
reduced,34 it is permitted to use all the wall if
the
reduction
extended35
to
four
handbreadths;36 otherwise, one may use only
that part37 that was parallel to the reduction.
What, however, is your view?38 If it is that
the reduction is effective,39 one should be
permitted to have the use of all the wall, and
if it is not effective,40 even the use of the part
that was parallel to the reduction should not
be permitted!41
Rabina replied: This is a case, for instance,42
where a section of its43 top has been pulled
down.44 R. Yehiel ruled: If a bowl is
inverted45 a valid reduction is thereby
effected.46 But why? Is not the bowl an object
that may be moved away on the Sabbath and
that as such47 causes no reduction?48
This49 is was required only in a case where
the bowl was attached to the ground.50 But
what matters it even if it was attached to the
ground, seeing that it was taught: An unripe
fruit that had been put into straw51 or a cake
that had been put among coals52 may be
taken out on the Sabbath if a part of it
remained uncovered?53
Here49 we are dealing with a case, for
instance, where the bowl had rims.54 But
what matters it even if it had rims, seeing
that we learned: If a man buried55 turnips or
radishes under a vine, leaving56
(1) And similarly they may also carry it down. The
top of the wall is in his opinion a free domain
and may, therefore, be regarded as merged with
the one courtyard or the other to suit the
convenience of the respective tenants.
(2) How then could R. Johanan maintain that it is
also permissible to carry up?
(3) In the ruling he gave here, according to which
the top of the wall is regarded as a free domain.
(4) Enunciated elsewhere.
(5) From Palestine into Babylon.

(6) Situated between a private and a public

domain.
(7) Though it is raised three handbreadths from
the ground and, had its area been no less than
four handbreadths by four, would have
constituted a karmelith from which it is forbidden
to move objects either into a public or into a
private domain.
(8) Although by so doing they are moving them
from the public or the private domain into that
place.
(9) And thus carry indirectly from a private
domain into a public one, or vice versa, which is a
form of transfer that is Rabbinically forbidden.
Pentateuchally only direct transfer from one into
the other of the domains mentioned is forbidden,
since there must be lifting from the one and
direct putting down in the other while in the case
under discussion before the object was finally put
down it was temporarily put down in, and lifted
up from the free domain (v. supra go). At any rate
it follows that it Johanan, by permitting the people
of either domain to rearrange their burdens on a
place having the area he mentioned, upholds the
principle of the existence of a free domain.
(10) Whose view differs from that of R. Johanan
(supra 76b ad fin.).
(11) Which is in fact based on a principle in a
Mishnah (Shab. 6a) which Rab could not very well
oppose.
(12) Sc. a proper public or private domain.
(13) As R. Dimi reported in the name of R.
Johanan.
(14) Courtyards which are Pentateuchally private
domains but were Rabbinically subjected to some
of the restrictions of a public domain.
(15) Sc. the Rabbis.
(16) As a safeguard against laxity.
(17) Which, being universally respected, required
no such safeguards.
(18) V. Marginal gloss. Cur. edd. read in
parenthesis, Raba said that R. Huna said.
(19) MS.M., Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of.
(20) Above the floor level of the courtyard
adjacent to it.
(21) Of the other courtyard whose floor was on a
higher level than that of the former, and was
within tell handbreadths from the top of the wall.
By level with the ground a height of less than ten
handbreadths is to be understood.
(22) Sc. only the tenants of that courtyard are
allowed to carry their objects up to, and down
from, the top of the wall. To the tenants of the
other courtyard this is forbidden.
(23) I.e., the level of the floor of the courtyard
adjacent to it was ten handbreadths higher than
the level of the bed of the trench.
(24) Sc. not lower than ten handbreadths from,
(25) Of the courtyard adjacent to it whose level
was lower than that of the former.

104

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(26) Cf. supra n. 2. mut. mut.
(27) To be concluded as in the previous discussion
of the wall.
(28) Those of wall and trench.
(29) Permitting the use of the top of the wall.
(30) And its use is, therefore, despite its
comparatively low altitude, forbidden to the
tenants of both courtyards.
(31) Cf. supra n. 9 mut. mut.
(32) Since any object put into it remains safely in
its position.
(33) The objects might fall off
(34) Lit., if he came to reduce it. This, it is now
assumed, implies the raising of the floor level of
the courtyard by means of a mound or a bench
close to the wall and within ten handbreadths
from the top of it.
(35) Along the base of the wall.
(36) An eminence of such dimensions is regarded
as a kind of doorway to the top of the wall since it
facilitates approach between the top and the
courtyard.
(37) Of the top.
(38) Lit., what is your desire, sc. whatever the
assumption a difficulty arises.
(39) I.e., that it is regarded as a valid doorway.
(40) So that it represents no doorway at all.
(41) Lit., also not.
(42) Not as has been previously assumed that the
floor of the courtyard had been raised.
(43) The wall's.
(44) If the gap resulting was four handbreadths
wide it may well be regarded as a valid doorway
through which all the top of the wall may be
Freely used. if, however, it was smaller it cannot
be regarded as a doorway to the wall but the space
in the gap may be freely used since the wall below
it is within ten handbreadths from the courtyard
floor level and cannot be regarded as a separate
domain.
(45) And placed at the side of a wall that
intervened between two courtyards.
(46) If the wall rises to less than ten handbreadths
above the back of the inverted bowl.
(47) Lit., and a thing that may be taken on the
Sabbath.
(48) An objection against R. Yehiel.
(49) R. Yehiel's ruling.
(50) in which case it may not be moved from its
place throughout the Sabbath.
(51) To ripen. Straw that had been set aside for
the manufacture of bricks or similar purpose may
not be moved from its place on the Sabbath on
account mukzeh v. Glos.
(52) That were aglow when the Sabbath began but
were extinguished now. Such coals may not be
moved on the Sabbath. Burning coals are subject
to greater restrictions (cf. Ker. 20a).
(53) Shab. 123a. As a part of the bowl also remains
uncovered by the ground its removal on the

Sabbath is equally permitted. How then could R.

Yehiel regard a bowl in such a condition as an
effective reduction.
(54) That were buried in the ground. A bowl in
such a condition may not be removed from its
place on the Sabbath, since its removal would
inevitably disturb the earth under which its rim is
buried, and the person removing it would be
guilty of performing an act that resembled the
forbidden work of digging.
(55) For storage purposes.
(56) Lit., in the time.

Eruvin 77b
some of the leaves uncovered,1 he2 need not
fear the possible transgression of the laws of
kil'ayim3 or of tithe or of the Sabbatical
year,4 and they may be removed on the
Sabbath?5 This6 was required in that case
only where a hoe or pickaxe is necessary.7 An
Egyptian ladder8 effects no reduction9 but a
Tyrian ladder10 does. What is to be
understood by an Egyptian ladder? At
the school of R. Jannai it was explained: One
that has less than four rungs.
R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What is
the reason why an Egyptian ladder8 effects no
reduction? Did you not hear, the other
replied, what R. Aha b. Adda stated in the
name of R. Hamnuna who had it from Rab:
Because it is an object that may be moved
about on the Sabbath and which, like all such
objects,11 causes no reduction? If so,
should not the same ruling apply to a Tyrian
ladder also?12 In the latter case13 it is its
weight that imparts to it a permanency of
position.14
Abaye ruled: If a wall between two
courtyards was ten handbreadths high, and
one ladder four handbreadths wide was
placed on the one side15 and another of the
same width was placed on the other side,16
and there is less than a distance of three
handbreadths between them,17 a valid
reduction is effected,18 but if there was a
distance of three handbreadths between
them,19 no valid reduction is affected. This,
however, applies only where the wall was less
than four handbreadths thick but if it was

105

ERUVIN 53a-79a
four handbreadths thick20 the reduction is
valid21 even if the ladders were far removed
from one another.22
R. Bebai b. Abaye ruled: If23 one balcony was
built24 above another balcony a valid
reduction is thereby effected if either the
lower one had an area25 of four handbreadths
[by four handbreadths]26 or, where it was
smaller,27 if the upper one had an area of
four handbreadths and there was no space of
three
handbreadths
between
them.28
Similarly29 R. Nahman citing Rabbah b.
Abbuha ruled: A step-ladder30 effects31 a
reduction if the length of the lower rung was
four handbreadths or, where it was shorter,
if the upper one was four handbreadths long
and there was no space of three
handbreadths between them.
R. Nahman further stated in the name of
Rabbah b. Abbuha:
(1) If they had been covered the vegetables would
not have been allowed to be moved on the Sabbath
(cf. infra).
(2) Since the vegetables did not take root in the
ground.
(3) V. Glos., if they were buried in a vineyard.
(4) If this happened in the course of such a year.
(5) Kil. 1, 9: Shab. 50a. Now, as the vegetables
mentioned may be removed on the Sabbath,
though they were buried in the ground, so would
the bowl spoken of by R. Yehiel be allowed to be
removed on the Sabbath. How then could the bowl
be regarded as an effective reduction.
(6) R. Yehiel's ruling.
(7) For the removal of the bowl. As removal in
such circumstances would involve work that is
definitely forbidden on the Sabbath the bowl
would have to remain in its position throughout
the Sabbath day, and consequently may also be
regarded as a valid reduction.
(8) Which is very small. Aliter: A ladder of rushes
or twigs.
(9) On account of the smallness of its size or the
frailty of its structure which makes it easily
portable.
(10) Which is heavier and not easily movable.
(11) Lit., and anything that may be taken on the
Sabbath.
(12) Since the latter too may be moved on the
Sabbath.
(13) Lit., there.

(14) Though it is permitted to be moved it may be

expected to remain in position throughout the
Sabbath on account of its weight.
(15) Of the wall, in one of the courtyards. Lit.,
from here.
(16) In the other courtyard.
(17) Lit., and (there was) not between this and
that.
(18) Since, despite the fact that the ladders are not
exactly facing each other, it is fairly easy to ascend
to the top of the wall by means of the one ladder,
to stride over the top and to descend into the next
courtyard by means of the other ladder. The two
ladders may, therefore, be regarded as a valid
opening between the courtyards.
(19) Sc. that it would not be very easy to gain
access from one courtyard into the other.
(20) In consequence of which it is quite convenient
to walk along the top of the wall.
(21) Since it is possible to ascend to the top of the
wall by means of the one ladder and to walk along
the thickness of the wall to the other ladder.
(22) Lit., separated more.
(23) In order to reduce the length of a wall
between two courtyards.
(24) Into the side of the wall.
(25) So according to Tosaf. Aliter: A length along
the wall(Rashi).
(26) And was built within three handbreadths
from the ground and within ten handbreadths
from the top of the wall. In this case the upper
balcony may be completely disregarded.
(27) Lit., also there is lot in the lower one four.
(28) So that the two may be regarded as
supplementary to each other and as a single unit
effect the required reduction. If a greater distance
than three handbreadths, however, separated
them from each other they cannot be regarded as
one unit and the reduction is invalid.
(29) Lit., and.
(30) Lit., a ladder whose rungs fly, opposite to
the steps of a staircase that are solidly built upon
one another.
(31) For notes on this paragraph cf. notes on the
case of balconies in the prev. one mut. mut.

Eruvin 78a
If on a molding of an area of four
handbreadths by four handbreadths that
projected from a wall1 a ladder of the
smallest size2 was rested3 a valid reduction is
thereby effected.4 This, however, applies only
where the ladder was resting on it,5 but if it
was placed at the side6 of its the latter is
thereby merely extended.7

106

ERUVIN 53a-79a
R. Nahman further stated in the name of
Rabbah b. Abbuha: A wall8 that was nineteen
handbreadths high requires only one
projection9 to enable it to be used as a means
of access,10 but a wall8 twenty handbreadths
high requires for the purpose two
projections.11
R. Hisda observed: This,12 however, applies
only where they are not situated exactly one
above the other.13
R. Huna ruled: If in a public domain there
was a post ten handbreadths high and four
handbreadths wide14 and a peg of the
smallest size had been inserted on it,15 a valid
reduction is thereby effected.16
R. Adda b. Ahabah observed: Provided the
peg was three handbreadths high.17
Both Abaye and Raba, however, maintain:
Even if it18 was not three handbreadths high.
What is their reason? Because it19 is no
longer suitable for use.20
R. Ashi ruled:21 Even if it18 was three
handbreadths high. What is the reason?- It is
possible to suspend some object from it.22
R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi, What is
the ruling where it19 was completely covered
with pegs?23 Did you not hear, the other
replied: the following ruling of R.
Johanan:24 A pit and the bank around it25
combine to constitute a depth of ten
handbreadths?26 Now seeing that [the bank]
cannot be used27 why [should it be regarded
as a private domain]? What then can you say
in reply? That some object28 might be placed
over it and thereby it is made available for
use. Well then, here also29 some object30
might be placed [over them]31 and thereby it
is made available for use.32
Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A wall33 ten
handbreadths high requires a ladder of
fourteen handbreadths in length34 to render
it permissible for use.35

R. Joseph ruled: Even [a ladder] of thirteen

handbreadths36
and
a
fraction
[is
sufficient].37
Abaye ruled: Even one of eleven
handbreadths38 and a fraction suffices.39
R. Huna son of R. Joshua ruled: Even one of
seven handbreadths and a fraction suffices.40
Rab stated: That a ladder in a vertical
position effects a reduction is a tradition but I
do not know the reason for it.41 Does not
Abba,42 Samuel said to him,43 know the
reason for this ruling? The case is in fact
similar to that of a balcony above a
balcony.44
Rabbah citing R. Hiyya said: The palm-trees
of Babylon45 need not be fixed to the
ground.46 What is the reason? Their
heaviness imparts permanency of position to
them.47
R. Joseph, however, citing R. Oshaia, ruled:
The ladders in Babylon48 need not be fixed in
position.46 What is the reason? Their
heaviness imparts permanency of position to
them. He49 who spoke of ladders would a
fortiori apply the same ruling to palm-trees.50
He,51 however, who spoke of palm-trees does
not apply the same ruling to ladders.52
R. Joseph enquired of Rabbah: What is the
ruling where two ladders53 were held
together by straw links between them?54 The
sole of the foot, the other replied, cannot
ascend upon them.55 What is your ruling if
the ladder56 was in the middle and the straw
links were on each side?57 Behold, the
other replied, the sole of the foot does ascend
upon them.58
(1) Between two courtyards.
(2) Sc. even one whose width was less than four
handbreadths, but whose rungs were fixed within
three handbreadths from one another, and the
lowest one was within three handbreadths from
the ground.

107

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(3) So that the molding formed a kind of platform
which the ladder resting on it joined with the
courtyard floor below.
(4) Because the platform above is of the prescribed
size and, together with the ladder, constitutes a
valid means of access between the courtyards.
(5) The molding.
(6) The top of the ladder resting on the wall itself.
(7) But as the ladder now forms no connection
between it and the ground it is, on account of the
distance of the latter from it, no valid reduction.
(8) Between two courtyards.
(9) In the middle of its height on which the top of a
ladder may be supported.
(10) Between the courtyards. Lit., to make it
permitted. A projection in the middle point of a
height of nineteen handbreadths leaves a distance
of less than ten handbreadths both below and
above it.
(11) One below the lower ten handbreadths of the
height of the wall and the other within ten
handbreadths from the top.
(12) That the two projections form, valid
reduction.
(13) So that it is possible to connect the two to
each other by means of a second ladder.
(14) Sc. four by four. A post of such dimensions
constitutes a private domain from which into the
public domain and from the public domain into
which the movement of objects on the Sabbath is
forbidden.
(15) In its surface on the top so that uppermost
area was reduced to one of less than four
handbreadths.
(16) The post loses the status of a private domain.
(17) if it was smaller it is regarded as part of the
surface of the top of the post.
(18) The peg.
(19) The top of the post.
(20) Since the peg, however low it may be, breaks
up the top's surface.
(21) The post is still regarded as a private domain.
(22) And since the post can still be used as a
private domain for this purpose, the peg cannot
effect any valid reduction in the surface of its top
which, consequently, remains a private domain.
(23) In consequence of which it cannot be use at
all. Is its size in this case deemed to be reduced
and the post, therefore, loses its status as a private
domain or is the law in the case of many pegs the
same as in that of one peg?
(24) Lit., that which... said.
(25) Lit., and its segment, Sc. a segment of the
earth excavated from the pit and placed around its
rim.
(26) The prescribed minimum of depth
constituting a private domain. The thickness of the
bank similarly combines with the hole of the pit to
constitute the prescribed minimum of four
handbreadths by four (cf. Shab, 99a).

(27) Since a part of the prescribed minimum is the

hole (cf. prev. n.).
(28) A board or a flat stone.
(29) Where the top of a post is covered with pegs.
(30) Having a surface of four handbreadths by
four.
(31) Over the Pegs.
(32) The post the top of which is completely
covered with pegs is, therefore, regarded as a
private domain.
(33) Between two courtyards.
(34) Placed in a slanting position at a distance of
ten handbreadths from the wall with its top
resting on the top edge of the wall (v. foll. n.).
(35) Sc. to allow free movement of objects between
the courtyards. As the ladder, the wall, and the
part of the courtyard floor between the latter and
the foot of the former represent respectively the
hypotenuse and the two sides of an isosceles rightangled triangle, and since the wall is ten
handbreadths high and the distance between the
foot of the ladder and the wall is also (cf. prev. n.)
ten handbreadths, the length, or height of the
ladder must be (10 + 10 X 2/5 approx. = 10 + 4 =)
14 handbreadths approx. (cf. Tosaf. a.l.).
(36) A handbreadth less than the length required
by Rab Judah.
(37) In his opinion it is either not necessary (cf.
Supra n. 5) to remove the foot of the ladder as
much as ten handbreadths from the wall, or it
suffices if its top reaches only to within one
handbreadth from the top of the wall (cf. R. Han.).
(38) Three handbreadths less than the length
required by Rab Judah.
(39) Since a distance of three handbreadths may
be disregarded in accordance with the principle of
labud, it suffices for the ladder to reach the wall at
a height of seven handbreadths and a fraction (cf.
supra n. 7 mut. mut.).
(40) He maintains that a ladder in a vertical
position effects the same permissibility as one in a
slanting position. By putting the ladder close to
the wall in a vertical position its top reaching a
point within three handbreadths from the top of
the wall, on the principle of labud (cf. prev. n.) this
point may be regarded as the top of the wall.
(41) Sc. why should a ladder in such a position, in
which one can hardly climb upon it, effect a
reduction?
(42) Sc. Rab. His proper name was Abba while
Rab (Master) was a title of distinction he earned
as the foremost Master of his time.
(43) Samuel was merely explaining the tradition.
He himself, as stated supra by Rab Judah,
requires a standing ladder of fourteen
handbreadths.
(44) Supra 77b, where reduction is effected though
the balconies are exactly one above the other and
one can hardly climb from the one into the other.

108

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(45) If their cut trunks were placed beside a wall
that intervened between two courtyards.
(46) Sc. they effect reduction, though, being
suitable as seats, they have the status of articles
that may be moved from their places on the
Sabbath.
(47) Since no one would be likely to shift them
from their place during the Sabbath.
(48) Cf. Supra n. 2 mut. mut.
(49) R. Oshaia.
(50) If ladders that are not so heavy as the palmtrees effect reduction how much more so the
latter.
(51) R. Hiyya.
(52) Cf. supra n. 7 mut. mut.
(53) Each less than two handbreadths wide.
(54) That formed rungs similar to those of the
ladders and supplemented their width to the
prescribed minimum of four handbreadths. Lit.,
a ladder from here and a ladder from here and
straws in the middle.
(55) The straw links. Since it is the middle of the
ladder, on which one's foot is usually put when
ascending, and since that middle part consists of
straw links that are unsuitable for the purpose,
the ladder cannot effect any reduction.
(56) Whose width was less than the prescribed
minimum of four handbreadths.
(57) Lit., straws from here and straws from here
and a ladder in the middle.
(58) The rungs of the ladder. When ascending on
these which are in the middle, one uses the straw
links on either side as supports for one's hands.
The entire structure may, therefore, be regarded
as a unit of the prescribed size and reduction may
thereby be effected.

Eruvin 78b
If grooves1 to supplement the width of the
ladder,2 were cut in the wall,3 up to what
height must this be carried?4 To ten
handbreadths,5 the other replied. If, he again
asked him, all the ladder was cut6 in the
wall,7 up to what height must this be carried?
Up to its8 full height, the other replied.
Wherein, however, lies the difference?9 In the
former case10 the other replied, one can easily
ascend11 [to the top of the wall], while in the
latter case12 this cannot be done.13
R. Joseph enquired of Rabbah: What is the
ruling if a tree was set aside as a ladder?14
The enquiry is made with reference to the
view of Rabbi15 and it is also made with
reference to that of the Rabbis.16 It is made

with reference to the view of Rabbi since It

is possible that Rabbi applied the principle
that any act that is forbidden as shebuth17 is
not subject to that prohibition during
twilight18 only there19 where the crucial
moment20 is at twilight,21 but [not where]22
the entire day [is involved];23 or is it possible
that even according to the Rabbis the tree
may have the status of a doorway,24 except
that it is one at the side of which a lion
crouches?25 What again26 is the ruling where
an Asherah27 was set aside to serve as a
ladder? The enquiry is made with reference
to the view of R. Judah28 and it is also made
with reference to that of the Rabbis.29 It is
made with reference to the view of R. Judah
since it is possible that R. Judah applied the
principle that a house may be bought with
objects the benefit from which is forbidden,
only there,30 because after the erub had
enabled hint to acquire31 the place32 its owner
derives no further satisfaction33 from its
preservation;34 or is it possible that even
according to the Rabbis an Asherah35 has the
status of a doorway,36 except that a lion
crouches at its side?37
A tree, the other replied, is permitted38 but
an Asherah is forbidden.39 R. Hisda
demurred: On the contrary! A tree the
restriction on the use of which is due to the
incidence of the Sabbath should40 be
forbidden, while an Asherah the restrictions
on which are due to an external41 cause
should not be forbidden. So42 it was also
stated:43 When Rabin came44 he reported in
the name of R. Eleazar or, as others say: R.
Abbahu reported in the name of R. Johanan:
Any object the restriction of the use of which
is clue to the incidence of the Sabbath is
forbidden, while in object the restriction on
which is due to an external41 cause is
permitted.45 R. Nahman b. Isaac taught thus:
[The permissibility of] a tree is a question at
issue between Rabbi and the Rabbis and that
of an Asherah is a question at issue between
R. Judah and the Rabbis.
MISHNAH. IF A TRENCH46 BETWEEN TWO
COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS

109

ERUVIN 53a-79a
DEEP AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE,
TWO ERUBS47 MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT
ONE,48 EVEN IF IT WAS FULL OF STUBBLE
OR STRAW.49 IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL
OF EARTH OR GRAVEL,50 ONLY ONE ERUB
MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT TWO.51 IF A
BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE WAS
PLACED52 ACROSS IT,53 AND SO ALSO
WHERE
TWO
BALCONIES54
WERE
OPPOSITE ONE ANOTHER,55 THE TENANTS
MAY PREPARE TWO ERUBS56 OR, IF THEY
PREFER, ONLY ONE. IF THE BOARD WAS OF
A LESSER WIDTH TWO ERUBS56 MAY BE
PREPARED, BUT NOT ONE.
GEMARA. But does not straw constitute a
proper filling seeing that we have learnt: If a
heap of straw between two courtyards was
ten handbreadths high two erubs may be
prepared56 but not one?57
Abaye replied: As regards the formation of a
partition no one disputes the ruling that
straw is regarded as a valid partition;58 with
regard, however, to its serving as a valid
filling59 it is only in the case where one
completely abandoned it60 that it constitutes a
valid filling, but not otherwise.
IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF
EARTH. This61 then applies62 even where
one's intention63 was not known. But have we
not learnt: If a house was filled with straw or
gravel and the owner announced his intention
to abandon it,64 it is duly abandoned,65 from
which it follows, does it not, that only if the
owner expressly abandoned it is it regarded
as abandoned66
(1) On either side of the rungs of the ladder.
(2) To the prescribed minimum of four
handbreadths.
(3) Between two court yards, on which the ladder
was leaning.
(4) Lit., he cut to supplement in a wall, by how
much.
(5) From the ground. Whatever the height of the
wall, valid steps on a width of four handbreadths
and a height often handbreadths are regarded as a
valid doorway between the courtyards (Rashi).
Aliter: The grooves must be cut to a height within

ten handbreadths from the top of the wall (R.

Tam.).
(6) Lit., he cut it all.
(7) Sc. instead of a movable ladder, grooves were
cut in the wall on a width of four handbreadths.
(8) The wall's.
(9) Between the last two cases. Sc. why is a height
of ten handbreadths sufficient in the former case
while in the latter the grooves are required to
reach to the very top of the wall?
(10) Where the ladder reached the top of the wall
and the grooves were only supplementary to its
width.
(11) By means of the ladder itself. As ascent is easy
it is sufficient for the supplementary grooves to
reach to a height of ten handbreadths only.
(12) Where there was no ladder at all.
(13) Unless grooves are cut to the full height of the
wall.
(14) For a wall that intervened between two
courtyards whose tenants desired to have free
access to each other.
(15) Who laid down (supra 32b) that an erub of
Sabbath limits deposited in a tree is valid.
(16) Who regard such an erub as invalid.
(17) V. Glos.
(18) So MS.M.
(19) The case of erub of Sabbath limits.
(20) The time the erub must take effect.
(21) Provided an erub of Sabbath limits was valid
and effective at that moment its subsequent
consumption or loss does not in any way deprive
its owner of any of the privileges the erub had
conferred upon him. Since the prohibition against
the use of a tree is only Rabbinical, and since such
a prohibition may be suspended at twilight, Rabbi
may well have maintained that the erub was
valid.
(22) As in the case of erub of courtyards under
discussion.
(23) Since access through a closed door is
obviously impossible the doorway between the two
courtyards must remain open and be available for
use throughout the day if the erub is to retain its
validity until the termination of the Sabbath. Now
since the use of a tree is forbidden on the Sabbath
the tree appointed cannot possibly serve as a
virtual doorway even according to Rabbi.
(24) And if one is appointed to serve as a ladder
access between the courtyards is thereby
permitted.
(25) Metaphor. The tree may be a valid doorway
that cannot be used on account of a Rabbinical
prohibition as an ordinary open door that cannot
be used on account of a lion that crouched beside
it. As in the latter case, though debarred from the
use of the doorway itself, the tenants are
nevertheless permitted access to one another
through any holes or crevices in the intervening

110

ERUVIN 53a-79a
wall so are they permitted in the former case even
according to the Rabbis.
(26) If in the last case the ruling is that a tree may
be regarded as a proper ladder and valid
doorway.
(27) A tree or grove devoted to idol worship from
which no benefit may be derived.
(28) Who laid down (supra 31a) that an erub
deposited on a grove is valid though one may
derive no benefit from a grove.
(29) Who, contrary to the view of R. Judah,
consider an erub on a grove as invalid.
(30) In the case of erub of Sabbath limits whose
validity is determined at the moment the Sabbath
begins.
(31) As his Sabbath abode.
(32) In which it was deposited.
(33) Throughout the Sabbath.
(34) He derives, therefore, no benefit from the
grove. The benefit he may seem to derive at
twilight, when the erub acquires validity, is in
fact no benefit in the material sense, since an erub
of Sabbath limits is allowed only for the purpose
of enabling one to perform a religious act the
benefit from which is purely spiritual. In the case
of an erub of courtyards, however, which does
serve the tenants material benefits, and a
doorway between courtyards the benefit of which
is enjoyed throughout the Sabbath, R. Judah may
well agree that an Asherah as a doorway is
invalid.
(35) Since the tenants do not use the Sabbath
itself.
(36) By means of which the tenants of both
courtyards are enabled to merge their two
domains into one.
(37) Cf. supra p. 546, n. 4 mut. mut.
(38) To be assigned as a ladder and to assume the
status of a valid doorway.
(39) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(40) Since it is desired to use it for the purpose of
relaxing a Sabbath law.
(41) Lit., another, one not connected with the
Sabbath but with idolatry.
(42) In agreement with R. Hisda's submission.
(43) By Amoras.
(44) From Palestine to Babylon.
(45) To be assigned as a ladder and to assume the
status of a valid doorway.
(46) Separating them completely from each other.
(47) On for each courtyard.
(48) Jointly for the two courtyards. A trench of
such dimensions is regarded as a complete
separation between the two courtyards. One that
was narrower than four handbreadths, since it is
easy to step across it, is disregarded and the
tenants of the two courtyards may join in one
erub.
(49) Since these were not intended to remain there
permanently.

(50) So that there was no substantial break

between the courtyards.
(51) Because, by so doing, the tenants of the one
courtyard would impose restrictions on those of
the other who (cf. prev. n.) virtually occupied the
same courtyard.
(52) To form a sort of bridge between the
courtyards.
(53) The trench.
(54) Belonging to two different owners.
(55) And a board of the width mentioned
connected them. [According to Rashi, the two
balconies, it appears, were on the same side of the
street, v. Strashun, a.l.].
(56) One for each courtyard.
(57) Infra 79a; which proves that straw, though
not intended to remain permanently in its
position, constitutes nevertheless a valid partition.
Why then does it not equally constitute a valid
filling?
(58) So long as it remains in its place; as is the case
with other movable objects which (cf. supra 15b)
constitute a valid partition.
(59) Sc. to be treated as a part of the ground.
(60) By announcing his intention to leave it
permanently in the trench.
(61) The ruling that ONLY ONE ERUB MAY BE
PREPARED because, obviously, the two
courtyards are regarded as one.
(62) Since no qualifying conditions were specified.
(63) To keep the gravel permanently in the trench.
(64) The straw or the gravel,
(65) And the house is regarded as filled in respect
of the laws of ohel. (Cf. Ohal. XV, 7 the contents of
which is here quoted in a summarized form).
(66) Lit., yes.

Eruvin 79a
but not if he did not expressly do so?1 R.
Huna replied: Who is it that taught Ohaloth?
R. Jose.2 But how could it be the view of3 R.
Jose seeing that he was heard to give a
reverse ruling, for it was taught: R. Jose
ruled, straw4 that was not likely to be
removed5 is on a par with ordinary earth6
and is deemed to be abandoned; earth4 that is
likely to be removed is on a par with
ordinary stubble6 and is not deemed to be
abandoned?7
Rather, said R. Assi, who is it that taught
Erubin?8 It is R. Jose.9 R. Huna son of R.
Joshua replied:10 You are pointing out an
incongruity between a law concerning
levitical uncleanness and one concerning

111

ERUVIN 53a-79a
Sabbath; leave alone the restrictions of the
Sabbath since on it a person abandons even
his purse.11
R. Ashi replied:10 You are pointing out an
incongruity between a ruling concerning a
house and one concerning a trench; a trench
might well be expected to be filled up,12 but is
a house also expected13 to be filled up?14
IF A BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS
WIDE WAS PLACED ACROSS IT. Raba
explained: This15 was taught only in the case
where it was laid across the width of it16 but
if it was laid lengthwise17 even a board of the
minutest width18 also suffices,19 since the
width of the trench is thereby reduced to less
than four handbreadths.20
AND
SO
ALSO
WHERE
TWO
BALCONIES WERE OPPOSITE ONE
ANOTHER. Raba explained: With reference
to what we learned,21 AND22 SO ALSO
WHERE TWO BALCONIES, etc. the
ruling23 applies only to such as are24 opposite
each other but not to such as are not opposite
each other or to such as are above each
other: and even in the case of such as are
above each other the ruling25 applies only
where there was a distance of three
handbreadths between them26 but if there
was no such distance between them they may
both be regarded as one crooked balcony.
MISHNAH. IF A HEAP OF STRAW BETWEEN
TWO COURTYARDS YARDS WAS TEN
HANDBREADTHS HIGH,27 TWO ERUBS28
MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE.29 THE
TENANTS OF THE ONE COURTYARD MAY
FEED THEIR CATTLE AT THEIR SIDE30 AND
THOSE OF THE OTHER COURTYARD MAY
FEED THEIRS ON THE OTHER SIDE.31 IF
THE HEIGHT OF THE STRAW HEAP WAS
REDUCED32
TO
LESS
THAN
TEN
HANDBREADTHS, ONE ERUB MAY BE
PREPARED33 BUT NOT TWO.28
GEMARA. R. Huna observed:34 Provided no
tenant puts any straw35 into his basket and
feeds his cattle.36 It is then permitted to put

cattle37 there;38 but did not R. Huna lay down

in the name of R. Hanina: A man may put his
beast on a stretch of grass39 on the Sabbath
day40 but not upon mukzeh?41
He only stands42 near the beast43 which itself
goes and eats.44 Provided no tenant puts any
straw into his basket. But was it not taught:
If a house45 was between two courtyards and
was filled with straw, two erubs may be
prepared46 but not one,47 and each tenant
may put some straw48 into his basket and
feed his cattle therewith. If the height of the
straw was reduced to less than ten
handbreadths, both49 are forbidden.50 How is
one to proceed?51 One of the tenants locks his
house52 and renounces his right to his share,
and thereby he53 remains under restrictions54
but his friend is permitted.55 And the same
law56 applies to a pit57 of straw between two
Sabbath limits.58 At any rate, was it not here
stated: each tenant may put some straw into
his basket and feed his cattle therewith?59
I might reply: In the case of a house, since it
has60 a ceiling, the reduction in the straw is
quite noticeable,61 but here62 the diminution
is not noticeable.63 If the height of the straw
was reduced to less than ten handbreadths
both are forbidden. But, it follows, if it was
ten handbreadths high this is permitted even
though the ceiling was much higher. May it
not then be inferred that partitions that do
not reach the ceiling are regarded as valid
ones?64
Abaye replied: We are here dealing with the
case of a house that was thirteen
handbreadths minus a fraction in height and
that of the straw was ten handbreadths in
height.65 R. Huna son of R. Joshua, however,
replied: It may even refer to a house that was
ten handbreadths high
(1) How then is this to be reconciled with the
implication of our Mishnah according to which
even where a person's
intention was not known his gravel is deemed to
be abandoned?
(2) Whose view differs from that of our Mishnah.
(3) Lit., if.

112

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(4) With which a house was filled.
(5) concerning which it is known that its owner
does not require it though he himself made no
announcement to this effect.
(6) About which its owners intention is not known
at all.
(7) Tosef. Ohal. XV; which shows that, according
to R. Jose, earth is deemed to be abandoned even
if no declaration to this effect has been made by its
owner. How then could R. Huna maintain that the
Mishnah of Ohal. cited represents R. Jose's view?
(8) Sc. the law of erub in our Mishnah from
which it follows that earth is deemed to be
abandoned even where its owner did not declare
his intention to leave it in its place.
(9) Whose view here is in full agreement with the
view he expressed in the last Baraitha cited.
(10) To the apparent contradiction between our
Mishnah and that of Ohal. (v. supra 78b ad fin.).
(11) Because he is forbidden to handle it on that
day. For the same reason one is assumed to
abandon earth which also may not be moved on
that day. Hence the lenient view in our Mishnah in
the case of earth and gravel in a trench. As straw
and stubble, however, may be handled on the
Sabbath, since they are used for feeding the cattle,
they cannot be regarded as abandoned unless the
owner had explicitly indicated his intention to do
so. In the case of levitical uncleanness, however,
where the prohibition against the removal of
either straw or gravel does not apply, neither can
be regarded as abandoned unless the owner has
made a definite announcement to that effect.
(12) Any earth or gravel in it might consequently
be regarded as abandoned even where the owner's
intention was not known.
(13) Lit., stands.
(14) Of course not. Earth or gravel in a house
cannot, therefore, be regarded as abandoned
unless the owner had specifically expressed his
intention to leave it there.
(15) That the board must be four handbreadths
wide.
(16) The trench.
(17) He fixed the length of the board to one side of
the trench in the form of a ledge so that the length
of the board and of the trench run parallel to each
other, the length of the former being no less than
four handbreadths, the prescribed minimum for
the width of a doorway.
(18) Provided it was wide enough to reduce the
width of the trench on a length of four
handbreadths (cf. prev. n.) to less than four
handbreadths.
(19) To eliminate the trench.
(20) And only a trench that is four handbreadths
wide (cf. our Mishnah) constitutes a break
between two courtyards.
(21) So Bah. Cur. edd., which thou saidest.

(22) The reading that follows is an emendation by

Bah. of the reading of cur. edd. Cf. also MS.M.
(23) That the tenants of the two balconies may join
in a single erub.
(24) Lit., yes.
(25) That the two balconies may not prepare an
erub jointly.
(26) The two balconies.
(27) And running all the length of the junction
between the courtyards.
(28) One for each courtyard.
(29) For both courtyards, since the heap of straw
forms a separation between the one courtyard and
the other.
(30) Lit., these may feed from here.
(31) Though the straw is thereby diminished and
night conceivably be reduced to a height of less
than ten handbreadths when the two courtyards
would virtually become one and, in consequence of
which, the tenants of the one courtyard would
impose restrictions upon those of the other. As
only a reduction in height that extended along
more ten cubits of the junction would cause the
courtyards to be merged into one (since a lesser
width might be regarded as a doorway) and as
cattle are not likely to eat so much in one day, the
possibility mentioned need not be provided
against.
(32) Along all, or ten cubits of the junction.
(33) For both courtyards, if the reduction took
place on a week-day.
(34) With reference to the ruling that THE
TENANTS... MAY FEED THEIR CATTLE.
(35) Which, forming as it does the partition
between the courtyards, is mukzeh (v. Glos.).
(36) The cattle must eat direct from the heap.
(37) Cf. prev. n.
(38) Though the straw is mukzeh and there is the
possibility of forgetting and picking it lip with the
hands which is forbidden.
(39) Lit., grasses.
(40) And, since a man is careful in the observance
of Sabbath prohibitions, there is no need to
provide against the possibility of his plucking the
grass forgetfully on the Sabbath.
(41) Shab. 122a. Since the law of mukzeh, being
only Rabbinical, is one of a minor character the
man might lightly forget it and so pick the mukzeh
up with his own hands on the Sabbath, an act
which is forbidden. Now since R. Huna forbids the
putting of a beast upon mukzeh, how could he,
according to his interpretation of our Mishnah,
allow a beast to be put immediately in front of the
straw heap which is definitely mukzeh?
(42) In the case spoken of in our Mishnah.
(43) To prevent it from straying.
(44) As the man does not stand at the side of his
beast no provision was deemed necessary against
the possibility of his handling of the mukzeh.

113

ERUVIN 53a-79a
(45) Into which a house from each courtyard
opened.
(46) One by the tenants of each courtyard, since
the straw forms a separation between them.
(47) For the two courtyards jointly.
(48) From his side of the straw.
(49) The tenants of either courtyard.
(50) To move any objects from their respective
houses into their respective courtyards.
(51) If it is desired to enable at least one of the
tenants to use his courtyard.
(52) That opened into the house between the
courtyards.
(53) Since he renounced his right and his
courtyard is no more his.
(54) He may not move any objects from his house
to his courtyard and vice versa.
(55) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(56) That (on a festival day) the residents on one
side may use the straw from their side and those
on the other side may use from the other side.
(5_) Or bundles.
(58) Of two towns, where half of the pit was within
the Sabbath limit of the one town and the other
half was within that of the other. The people on
either side may use the straw on their side, no
preventive measure having been instituted against
the possibility of their using the straw from the
other side.
(59) How then could R. Huna maintain that no
tenant may put any straw into his basket?
(60) Cur. edd. in parenthesis, walls and.
(61) Since the lower the straw the bigger the space
between it and the ceiling. As its diminution to a
height of less than ten handbreadths would be
clearly noticeable the use of the straw would cease
as soon as that height was reached. Above that
height the straw does not serve the purpose of a
wall and is not, therefore, subject to the
restrictions of mukzeh.
(62) Where the heap is in the open.
(63) And one might erroneously continue to use
the straw even after it had been reduced in height
to less than ten handbreadths when the
restrictions of mukzeh prevent its use. Hence R.
Huna's ruling that no straw may be put into a
tenant's basket for feeding his cattle.
(64) But is not this contradictory to a ruling
(supra 72a) in respect of five companies who kept
the Sabbath in the same room.
(65) On the principle of labud the walls are
deemed to reach to the ceiling.

114